On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 04/04/2017 16:47, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >>> -#define KVM_REQ_VCPU_EXIT 8
> >>> +#define KVM_REQ_PAUSE 8
> >> Small nit: can we have a #define for this 8? KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE, or
> >> something along those lines?
> > Sounds good to me. Should I even do something like
> >
> > #define KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE 8
> >
> > #define KVM_ARCH_REQ(bit) ({ \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(((bit) + KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE) >= BITS_PER_LONG); \
>
> Please make this 32 so that we don't fail on 32-bit machines.
>
> or even
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON((unsigned)(bit) >= BITS_PER_LONG - KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE);
>
> in case someone is crazy enough to pass a negative value!
Will do.
Thanks,
drew
>
> Paolo
>
> > ((bit) + KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE); \
> > })
> >
> > #define KVM_REQ_PAUSE KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
> >
> > or would that be overkill? Also, whether we switch to just the base
> > define, or the macro, I guess it would be good to do for all
> > architectures.
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
