>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs <justing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX > be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure > padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is exactly 4 bytes, > so this should be made explicit. ILP64 machines may still be a way > out, but the use of non-fixed sized types in places where size really > matters just isn't clean. Yes, if we're going to rev the interface, then any such flaws should be corrected. (Also shrinking the Cc list a little.) Jan _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
