On 09/02/16 18:28, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 11:00:37AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> Having u64 as the kvm_call_hyp return type is problematic, as >> it forces all kind of tricks for the return values from HYP >> to be promoted to 64bit (LE has the LSB in r0, and BE has them >> in r1). >> >> Since the only user of the return value is perfectly happy with >> a 32bit value, let's make kvm_call_hyp return an unsigned long, >> which is 32bit on ARM. > > I wonder why I ever did this as a u64... Probably to cater for the largest possible return value, before we started looking at BE... ;-) > should the arm64 counterpart be modified to an unsigned long as well? That'd be a sensible change. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
