From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b4fee4415ac8f189608cc1b7971c27c1@terzarima.net>
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Fri,  8 Jul 2005 00:08:45 +0100
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question
In-Reply-To: <310D4BA6-03CF-43D6-8E1D-7B5F312E85F7@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 62d91e22-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i don't understand.  if it's in the portability interface,
you say what arch_vcpu_info_t is, so why not
typedef int arch_vcpu_info_t;
and be done with it.  i don't see why it must be a struct
in that context.

i'd assumed (based on having looked at some xen headers
a month ago) that they'd used 0-length things to try to
get round some portability problem with `packed' structs,
but the problem seems simpler than that.