From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37795)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Veno7-0005j5-Vf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:17:17 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Veno0-0000gD-54
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:17:11 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:59500)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Vennz-0000eJ-UK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:17:04 -0500
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x18so1596669lbi.12
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:17:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <527CFE42.9090407@redhat.com>
References: <1383859470.2527.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1383863039-18875-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<1383863039-18875-2-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<CAFe8ug87BOPEtpAE_9Q-g_E+A9Q-m4g2iaTZOwxO+hgibJwKJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<527CFE42.9090407@redhat.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:16:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA_o1ZsLX8dtW5L+3OQgtntix2tfqZweb9r7GdW=P6ZYjw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] i386/pc: propagate flash size from
 pc_system_flash_init() to pc_init1()
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.a@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, "edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Jordan Justen <jljusten@gmail.com>, afaerber <afaerber@suse.de>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>

On 8 November 2013 15:07, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/08/13 07:09, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> int64_t? :)
>
> Heh, yes, I did cringe when I wrote that, but if you check the
> bottom-most function, where the assignment happens,
> pc_system_flash_init(), it declares the local "size" variable as
> int64_t. I've given up on arguing for sensible unsigned types so I just
> went with the flow

That's a bug in that function which should be fixed.
This is a memory region size and those are uint64_t.

That said, having to pass the size of a sub-sub-region
all the way back up the call stack is very odd and makes
me wonder if it's really the right way to do it...
The top level shouldn't have to care like that about
details of the bottom of the callstack.

thanks
-- PMM