On 04/04/17 15:51, 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!
>
> 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.
>
Both suggestions look good to me.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
