From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sinmsgout02.his.huawei.com (sinmsgout02.his.huawei.com [119.8.177.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 586CF2DECB1 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=119.8.177.37 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767891468; cv=none; b=FO8fuwnQbx3DTSG7qhONL/ehwOWHfp/MKsS1lTVhXUJ3CbO9UctNGnoxtKkSBU/C1vFdAMXzvNzGtswPgX2H3awX4qUdlB7B/0BLn05HYgCUNowP34tkDMK5VUz0JggDAcPPTO6Xl/4NAziICWzX3N2h8V9NDTKMFBPvuB+guUU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767891468; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wbU4fkpkOOSXQwSp10NRbg+E3BjPYUuFytg8j8m19zE=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=i610iqseDKkKk/6+FtKQvRYj5CldrE4TlLTeIbX/WsjKunKom3/1Wrf8+X/++4mnCrksWpLeOtvL33SkrnJtnkDUWO1sREEikzfu7cIlfYU3xCc/drulJ38KAaqv1nB50IH03G8sSt3tA4uzU69wHC6xdJ11uCqmk7MOwfjBiZ0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=WeCWOz6V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=119.8.177.37 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="WeCWOz6V" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=wbU4fkpkOOSXQwSp10NRbg+E3BjPYUuFytg8j8m19zE=; b=WeCWOz6VnYjpLolBIyuz7dR9docT6AbY8hEl1QjtHpOFFWAx0xJnBwOddeJxQSMFtvagHzBQf iat4eRHpSsmDSZEUZaaIWuSzVqTh0Mt3WNjjXoY2AgT258tYE1My5NhTZXoEu7AYXr5Da4zAmrl eYlq6LpGk4uwcGYNJIZJYwQ= Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.146.33]) by sinmsgout02.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dn9y33L8gz1vnM8; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 00:55:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.224.150]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dnB0Q4NbvzJ468V; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 00:57:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.214.146.113]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B861F40539; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 00:57:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.15) by dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:57:30 +0000 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:57:29 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Sascha Bischoff CC: "yuzenghui@huawei.com" , "lpieralisi@kernel.org" , Timothy Hayes , "Suzuki Poulose" , nd , "peter.maydell@linaro.org" , "kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Joey Gouly , "maz@kernel.org" , "oliver.upton@linux.dev" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/36] KVM: arm64: gic-v5: Check for pending PPIs Message-ID: <20260108165729.0000290f@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <0f8b393f8c9e557ba081a75757f1140c0da75a76.camel@arm.com> References: <20251219155222.1383109-1-sascha.bischoff@arm.com> <20251219155222.1383109-20-sascha.bischoff@arm.com> <20260107150012.0000336b@huawei.com> <0f8b393f8c9e557ba081a75757f1140c0da75a76.camel@arm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100010.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.197) To dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Bischoff =20 > > Hi Sascha, > >=20 > > One thing I notice in here is the use of unsigned long vs u64 is a > > bit > > inconsistent.=A0 When it's a register or something we just read from a > > register > > I'd always use u64. =20 >=20 > Yeah, I'd like to do the same. The issue is that the for_each_set_bit() > loop construct only works with unsigned long, and not u64. I'll rework > the code to use u64 wherever possible. Whilst is a bit silly with a single u64, there is bitmap_from_arr64() The compiler should be able to see enough to flatten that to an assignment so it's pretty cheap and ends up documenting why types are different.