On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:36 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 07:44:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Any objection against this variant (was posted in the thread):
> >
> > #define untagged_addr(mm, addr) ({ \
> > u64 __addr = (__force u64)(addr); \
> > s64 sign = (s64)__addr >> 63; \
> > __addr &= (mm)->context.untag_mask | sign; \
> > (__force __typeof__(addr))__addr; \
> > })
> >
> > ?
>
> Yeah, I suppose that should work fine.
Won't the sign bit be put at the wrong place?
--
H.J.
