Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:26:01PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Christoffer Dall <c.dall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 01:38:55PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >>> + /* -ENOENT for unknown features, -EINVAL for invalid combinations. */
>> >>> + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(init->features)*8; i++) {
>> >>> + if (init->features[i / 32] & (1 << (i % 32))) {
>> >>
>> >> Isn't this an open-coded version of test_bit() ?
>> >
>> > indeed, nicely spotted:
>>
>> BTW, I wrote it that was out of excessive paranoia: it's a userspace
>> API, and test_bit() won't be right on 64 bit BE systems.
>
> So why is this a concern for 32-bit systems (which are, by definition,
> only in arch/arm) ?
Because this feature bitmap system is the same code which other archs
*should* be using for specifying kvm cpus :)
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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
