From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] virtio: add 1.0 support
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:46:03 +0800
Message-ID: <20160119024603.GG19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1452581944-24838-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1452832571-6156-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1452832571-6156-8-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5A0EAF@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20160119013659.GF19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5A237E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD388E68
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:43:57 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5A237E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:51:30AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 9:34 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:07:51PM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> >> .On 1/15/2016 12:34 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >>> Modern (v1.0) virtio pci device defines several pci capabilities.
> >>> Each cap has a configure structure corresponding to it, and the
> >>> cap.bar and cap.offset fields tell us where to find it.
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>> +
> >>> +static inline void
> >>> +io_write64_twopart(uint64_t val, uint32_t *lo, uint32_t *hi)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	io_write32((uint32_t)val, lo);
> >>> +	io_write32(val >> 32,     hi);
> >> Firstly your second iowrite32 doesn't do the conversion.
> > Because it's not necessary. The first one is for retrieving the low 32
> > bits.
> 
> I don't mean the shift operation, but the conversion from 64bit to 32bit.
> Same applied to below.

It's more than a casting here: it's same as "val & (1<<32 - 1)", as
stated above, to retrieve the low 32 bits.

I know it still could work without it, but, hey, what's wrong to make
it explicit?

	--yliu