On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:51:19 +0100
Claudio Imbrenda <imbre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:34:59 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:45:02 +0100
> > Claudio Imbrenda <imbre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_event_facility_mask64 = {
> > > + .name = "vmstate-event-facility/mask64",
> > > + .version_id = 0,
> > > + .minimum_version_id = 0,
> > > + .needed = vmstate_event_facility_mask64_needed,
> > > + .pre_load = vmstate_event_facility_mask64_pre_load,
> > > + .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> > > + VMSTATE_UINT64(receive_mask, SCLPEventFacility),
> > > + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> > > + }
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > Are there plans for extending this beyond 64 bits? Would it make sense
>
> I don't know. I'm not even aware of anything above 32 bits, but since we
> are already using all of the first 32 bits, it's only matter of time I
> guess :)
>
> > to use the maximum possible size for the mask here, so you don't need
> > to introduce yet another vmstate in the future? (If it's unlikely that
>
> That's true, but it requires changing simple scalars into bitmasks.
> Surely doable, but I wanted to touch as little as possible.
OK, that pushes this firmly into the 'overkill' area. Let's just go
with your current approach.
>
> > the mask will ever move beyond 64 bit, that might be overkill, of
> > course.)
