On 04/04/2017 16:47, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> -#define KVM_REQ_VCPU_EXIT 8
>>> +#define KVM_REQ_PAUSE 8
>> Small nit: can we have a #define for this 8? KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE, or
>> something along those lines?
> Sounds good to me. Should I even do something like
>
> #define KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE 8
>
> #define KVM_ARCH_REQ(bit) ({ \
> BUILD_BUG_ON(((bit) + KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE) >= BITS_PER_LONG); \
Please make this 32 so that we don't fail on 32-bit machines.
or even
BUILD_BUG_ON((unsigned)(bit) >= BITS_PER_LONG - KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE);
in case someone is crazy enough to pass a negative value!
Paolo
> ((bit) + KVM_REQ_ARCH_BASE); \
> })
>
> #define KVM_REQ_PAUSE KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
>
> or would that be overkill? Also, whether we switch to just the base
> define, or the macro, I guess it would be good to do for all
> architectures.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
