From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] xen/arm: Support sign-extension for
 every read access
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:03:49 +0100
Message-ID: <1443524629.16718.49.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1443192698-16163-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<1443192698-16163-4-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<1443199485.25250.212.camel@citrix.com> <56098549.2080503@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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=7074e5ba0=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZgshO-0006Zu-MD
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:03:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <56098549.2080503@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: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, vijay.kilari@gmail.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 19:22 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 25/09/15 17:44, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 15:51 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > I think you meant s/bit sign/sign bit/ but more correct would be "Sign
> > extend if required".
> > 
> > > +     * Note that we expect the read handler to have zeroed the bit
> > > +     * unused in the register.
> > 
> > "... to have zeroed the unused bits in the register".
> > 
> > But I think "unused" is a bit misleading, you mean the ones outside the
> > requested access size, those bits are still "used" IYSWIM. I can't
> > think of
> > a terse term for "outside the requested access size I'm afraid.
> 
> I will switch to "Note that we expect the read handler to have zeroed
> the bits outside the requested access size."
> 
> > 
> > Did you confirm that all existing handlers meet this requirement?
> 
> Yes, we always do *r in the existing handlers.
> 
> > Perhaps an ASSERT would be handy?
> 
> What about:
> 
> ASSERT((*r & ((~0UL) >> (BITS_PER_LONG - size))) == 0)

Is that not backwards, e.g for size = 8, then 

~0UL >> (32-8) == 0xffffffff >> 24 == 0xff, so you end up checking that the
lowest byte is zero, but that's the one you expected to change.

Or is it, couldn't we be updating a byte in the middle of the word?

Probably figuring out the correct assertion is more hassle than it is
worth..


> 
> Regards,
>