Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 3/7] libxl: introduce a new structure to represent static shared memory regions

[Zhongze Liu <blackskygg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

2018-02-06 23:46 GMT+08:00 Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/06/2018 03:41 PM, Zhongze Liu wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing.
>>
>> 2018-02-06 19:27 GMT+08:00 Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2018 05:50 PM, Zhongze Liu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Add a new structure to the IDL familiy to represent static shared memory
>>>> regions
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> +libxl_static_shm = Struct("static_shm", [
>>>> +    ("id", string),
>>>> +    ("offset", uint64, {'init_val': 'LIBXL_SSHM_RANGE_UNKNOWN'}),
>>>> +    ("begin", uint64, {'init_val': 'LIBXL_SSHM_RANGE_UNKNOWN'}),
>>>> +    ("end", uint64, {'init_val': 'LIBXL_SSHM_RANGE_UNKNOWN'}),
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We might want to store the size rather than the end. This would allow us
>>> to
>>> cover region up to the address 2^64-1.
>>>
>>> Also, this would make clearer whether end is included in the region or
>>> not.
>>>
>>
>> I think making the range inclusive and documenting it would have the
>> same effect.
>> But I'm not sure which syntax is more friendly to the users. What do you
>> think?
>
>
> You would still run into some problem. Indeed LIBX_SSHM_RANGE_UNKNOWN is
> defined as UINT64_MAX. So how would you differentiate them?

But saying inclusive, I was actually trying to say "including the page
that begins at @end", so
the only possibility when  LIBXL_SSHM_RANGE_UNKNOWN would be a valid value for
@end is when the page granularity is 1byte, which, I think, is not
very likely to happen.

But soon I find this might lead to more confusion. Now I agree with
you that we should use
the begin/size syntax instead of the current one.

Cheers,

Zhongze Liu

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel