On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:04:34AM +0800, peng.hao2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 11:31:04AM +0800, peng.hao2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:47:18PM -0400, Peng Hao wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>From: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> modify AVIC_LOGICAL_ID_ENTRY_VALID_MASK to unsigned
>>>>>
>>>>>Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>---
>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>>>index d96092b..bf1ded4 100644
>>>>>--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>>>+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>>>@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ struct amd_svm_iommu_ir {
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> #define AVIC_LOGICAL_ID_ENTRY_GUEST_PHYSICAL_ID_MASK (0xFF)
>>>>>-#define AVIC_LOGICAL_ID_ENTRY_VALID_MASK (1 << 31)
>>>>>+#define AVIC_LOGICAL_ID_ENTRY_VALID_MASK (1UL << 31)
>>>
>>>>It is reasonable to change to unsigned, while not necessary to unsigned
>>>>long?
>>>AVIC_LOGICAL_ID_ENTRY_VALID_MASK is used in function avic_ldr_write.
>>>here I think it doesn't matter if you use unsigned or unsigned long. Do you have any suggestions?
>
>>In current case, AVIC_LOGICAL_ID_ENTRY_VALID_MASK is used to calculate
>>the value of new_entry with type of u32. So the definition here is not
>>harmful.
>
>>Also, I did a quick grep and found similar definition (1 << 31) is popular
>>in the whole kernel tree.
>
>>The reason to make this change is not that strong to me. Would you
>>minding sharing more reason behind this change?
>oh, I'm just thinking logically, not more reason.
This definition may introduce problem when this value is used to
calculate a 64bit data.
Since current entry is 32bit, we may leave it as it is for now.
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
