On 25/09/15 17:44, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 15:51 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > I think you meant s/bit sign/sign bit/ but more correct would be "Sign > extend if required". > >> + * Note that we expect the read handler to have zeroed the bit >> + * unused in the register. > > "... to have zeroed the unused bits in the register". > > But I think "unused" is a bit misleading, you mean the ones outside the > requested access size, those bits are still "used" IYSWIM. I can't think of > a terse term for "outside the requested access size I'm afraid.
I will switch to "Note that we expect the read handler to have zeroed the bits outside the requested access size." > > Did you confirm that all existing handlers meet this requirement? Yes, we always do *r in the existing handlers. > Perhaps an ASSERT would be handy? What about: ASSERT((*r & ((~0UL) >> (BITS_PER_LONG - size))) == 0) Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
