On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 12:24:32PM -0800, Roman Kisel wrote:
>
>
> On 1/6/2025 9:37 AM, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > From: Roman Kisel <romank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 10:10 AM
> [...]
> >
> > These bit field definitions don't look right. We want to "fill up"
> > the field size, so that we're explicit about each bit, and not leave
> > it to the compiler to add padding (which __packed tells the
> > compiler not to do). So in aggregate, the "u64" bit fields should
> > account for all 64 bits, but here you account for only 32 bits.
> > There are two ways to fix this:
> >
> > u32 interruption_pending : 1;
> > u32 interruption_type: 1;
> > u32 reserved : 30;
> > u32 error_code;
> > Or
> > u64 interruption_pending : 1;
> > u64 interruption_type: 1;
> > u64 reserved : 30;
> > u64 error_code : 32;
> >
> >
> > Nuno -- your thoughts?
>
> Quite a blunder on my side! Thank you very much for your help :)
> GDB is my witness:
>
> (gdb) ptype /o union hv_arm64_pending_synthetic_exception_event
> /* offset | size */ type = union
> hv_arm64_pending_synthetic_exception_event {
> /* 16 */ u64 as_uint64[2];
> /* 13 */ struct {
> /* 0: 0 | 4 */ u32 event_pending : 1;
> /* 0: 1 | 4 */ u32 event_type : 3;
> /* 0: 4 | 4 */ u32 reserved : 4;
> /* 1 | 4 */ u32 exception_type;
> /* 5 | 8 */ u64 context;
>
> /* total size (bytes): 13 */
> };
>
> /* total size (bytes): 16 */
> }
>
> which looks messed up to me to put it mildly. Will fix next time.
We are pretty close to the next merge window (~2 weeks). Can you please
resend a version this week or early next week?
Nuno, if you have any comments on this series, now it is the time to
share them.
Thanks,
Wei.
