On 06.01.2020 20:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/12/2019 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.12.2019 22:02, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
Bottom line - I'm half convinced and willing to give my ack, but
I'm not convinced you truly thought through the lon
On 09/12/2019 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.12.2019 22:02, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Bottom line - I'm half convinced and willing to give my ack, but
>>> I'm not convinced you truly thought through the longer term
>>> consequences. I'd therefore be far
Hi Jan,
On 09/12/2019 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.12.2019 22:02, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
Bottom line - I'm half convinced and willing to give my ack, but
I'm not convinced you truly thought through the longer term
consequences. I'd therefore be far happ
On 06.12.2019 22:02, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Bottom line - I'm half convinced and willing to give my ack, but
>> I'm not convinced you truly thought through the longer term
>> consequences. I'd therefore be far happier to see this patch
>> split into a non-
On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.11.2019 14:39, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 12/11/2019 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 11.11.2019 21:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
@@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ long do_set_segment_base(un
On 12.11.2019 14:39, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 12/11/2019 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.11.2019 21:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
>>> @@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ long do_set_segment_base(unsigned int which, unsigned
>>> long base)
>>>
On 12/11/2019 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.11.2019 21:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
>> @@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ long do_set_segment_base(unsigned int which, unsigned
>> long base)
>> }
>>
>>
>> -/* Returns TRUE if given descript
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:24:43PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> actypes.h and efidef.h both define BOOLEAN as unsigned char, which is buggy in
> combination with logic such as "BOOLEAN b = (a & 0x100);" Redefine BOOLEAN as
> bool instead, which doesn't truncate.
>
> Both also define TRUE and FAL
On 11.11.2019 21:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c
> @@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ long do_set_segment_base(unsigned int which, unsigned
> long base)
> }
>
>
> -/* Returns TRUE if given descriptor is valid for GDT or LDT. */
> +/* Returns true
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> actypes.h and efidef.h both define BOOLEAN as unsigned char, which is buggy in
> combination with logic such as "BOOLEAN b = (a & 0x100);" Redefine BOOLEAN as
> bool instead, which doesn't truncate.
>
> Both also define TRUE and FALSE, with actypes.h be
actypes.h and efidef.h both define BOOLEAN as unsigned char, which is buggy in
combination with logic such as "BOOLEAN b = (a & 0x100);" Redefine BOOLEAN as
bool instead, which doesn't truncate.
Both also define TRUE and FALSE, with actypes.h being extra rude and replacing
whatever exists thus fa
11 matches
Mail list logo
