From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: change the flags cpu context
 field to uint64_t
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:38:54 +0100
Message-ID: <569D070E.9070209@citrix.com>
References: <569CFAEE.3050805@citrix.com>
	<1453129771-78737-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<569D10F002000078000C8169@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<569D0396.2060207@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=8183bab3b=roger.pau@citrix.com>)
	id 1aLBtt-0007RO-GJ
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:39:25 +0000
In-Reply-To: <569D0396.2060207@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 18/01/16 a les 16.24, Andrew Cooper ha escrit:
> On 18/01/16 15:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 18.01.16 at 16:09, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
>>> @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ struct hvm_hw_cpu {
>>>      uint32_t error_code;
>>>  
>>>  #define _XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED        0
>>> -#define XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED         (1U<<_XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED)
>>> -    uint32_t flags;
>>> +#define XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED         (1UL<<_XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED)
>>> +    uint64_t flags;
>>>  };
>> How is the UL going to make this safe for a 32-bit consumer?
>> Makes me think that, other than just said in reply to v1, it'll
>> indeed be better to have a separate field (with a separate
>> zero-check)... The (undesirable imo) alternative being to use
>> 1L instead.
> 
> I am happy either way.  My R-b stands.

What about using ULL or simply casting to uint64_t?

Roger.