From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50729) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asexr-0005OV-Mb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:21:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asexp-0004EE-J3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:21:51 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:45305) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asexp-0004Dr-F8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:21:49 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C209E2124D for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:21:45 -0400 From: "Emilio G. Cota" Message-ID: <20160419232145.GA19286@flamenco> References: <1460049562-23517-1-git-send-email-cota@braap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1460049562-23517-1-git-send-email-cota@braap.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tb: consistently use uint32_t for tb->flags List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Peter Crosthwaite , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost , Michael Walle , Aurelien Jarno , Leon Alrae , Anthony Green , Jia Liu , Alexander Graf , Blue Swirl , Mark Cave-Ayland , Bastian Koppelmann , Guan Xuetao , Max Filippov , "Edgar E. Iglesias" , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Laurent Desnogues , MTTCG Devel , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 13:19:22 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely > between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is > superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses the most significant > bit in the u32, and uint64_t is wasteful. > > Compile-tested for all targets. > > Suggested-by: Laurent Desnogues > Suggested-by: Richard Henderson > Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota Has this patch been queued by anyone? If not, should I resend after 2.6 is released? Thanks, Emilio