On 23.04.2010, at 14:53, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 03:46 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 23 April 2010, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/23/2010 03:27 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Using a 64-bit integer avoids the problem (though perhaps not sufficient
>>>>> for s390, Arnd?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> When there is only a __u64 for the address, it will work on s390 as well,
>>>> gcc is smart enough to clear the upper bit on a cast from long to pointer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah, much more convenient than compat_ioctl. I assume it part of the
>>> ABI, not a gccism?
>>>
>> I don't think it's part of the ABI, but it's required to guarantee
>> that code like this works:
>>
>> int compare_pointer(void *a, void *b)
>> {
>> unsigned long ai = (unsigned long)a, bi = (unsigned long)b;
>>
>> return ai == bi; /* true if a and b point to the same object */
>> }
>>
>> We certainly rely on this already.
>>
>
> Ah so the 31st bit is optional as far as userspace is concerned? What does it mean? (just curious)
The 0x80000000 bit declares that a pointer is in 24-bit mode, so that applications can use the spare upper bits for random data.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/31-bit for an explanation.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
