On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:07:02AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > CC Konrad > > > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 10/09/2015 19:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > + > > > > + switch (reg->size) { > > > > + case 1: rc = xen_host_pci_get_byte(&s->real_device, offset, > > > > (uint8_t *)&val); > > > > > > A bit ugly, and it relies on the host being little endian. > > > > > > > + break; > > > > + case 2: rc = xen_host_pci_get_word(&s->real_device, offset, > > > > (uint16_t *)&val); > > > > > > Same here. > > > > cpu_to_le32? > > > > But in practice, Xen being little endian only, I doubt that > > xen_pt_config_init.c > > would actually work on be. > > > > > > > > + break; > > > > + case 4: rc = xen_host_pci_get_long(&s->real_device, offset, > > > > &val); > > > > + break; > > > > + default: assert(1); > > > > > > This should be assert(0) or, better, abort(). > > OK. Stefano, do you want me to: > > 1). Rebase the patches on top of your tag?
Patches are already upstream, so no worries about rebasing. > 2). Send an follow up patch to change this to abort()? (and wherever else I > used > assert(..)? Yes, that would be good. > 3). Wait till Paolo is done going through the patchset and then revisit 1) > or 2)? I don't know if Paolo has any more comments. Regarding his previous comment on little-endian, as I wrote I am not sure if sprinkling around some cpu_to_le32 would actually make hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c much better. I'll leave that to you.