On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:30 PM Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:51:31PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 1/23/20 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Changes since 20200123: > > > > > > The kvm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. > > > > > > > on i386: > > > > ../arch/x86/kvm/x86.h:363:16: warning: right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow] > > Jim, > > This is due to using "unsigned long data" for kvm_dr7_valid() along with > "return !(data >> 32);" to check for bits being set in 63:32. Any > objection to fixing the issue by making @data a u64? Part of me thinks > that's the proper behavior anyways, i.e. the helper is purely a reflection > of the architectural requirements, the caller is responsible for dropping > bits appropriately based on the current mode. Why not just change that bad return statement to one of the alternatives you had suggested previously? I think "return !(data >> 32)" was the only suggested alternative that doesn't work. :-)
