On 08/10/2018 04:25, Wei Yang wrote:
> 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.
I agree.
Paolo
