On Tue, 12 May 2015 15:14:53 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
I take that as a valid reason then :)
> 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?
Hmm... if I remember well, it still lacks migration support.
--
Greg
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
