On Wed, 06 May 2015 14:07:37 +0200
Greg Kurz <gkurz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Unlike with add and clear, there is no valid reason to abort when checking
> for a feature. It makes more sense to return false (i.e. the feature bit
> isn't set). This is exactly what __virtio_has_feature() does if fbit >= 32.
>
> This allows to introduce code that is aware about new 64-bit features like
> VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, even if they are still not implemented.
>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gkurz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h
> index d95f8b6..6ef70f1 100644
> --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h
> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h
> @@ -233,7 +233,6 @@ static inline void virtio_clear_feature(uint32_t *features, unsigned int fbit)
>
> static inline bool __virtio_has_feature(uint32_t features, unsigned int fbit)
> {
> - assert(fbit < 32);
> return !!(features & (1 << fbit));
> }
>
>
>
I must say I'm not very comfortable with knowingly passing out-of-rage
values to this function.
Can we perhaps apply at least the feature-bit-size extending patches
prior to your patchset, if the remainder of the virtio-1 patchset still
takes some time?
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
