>>> On 24.06.15 at 15:14, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> From: xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org [mailto:xen-devel- >> boun...@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of Jan Beulich >> Sent: 24 June 2015 14:08 >> >>> On 24.06.15 at 13:24, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/io.h >> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/io.h >> > @@ -35,7 +35,9 @@ typedef int (*hvm_mmio_write_t)(struct vcpu *v, >> > unsigned long addr, >> > unsigned long length, >> > unsigned long val); >> > -typedef int (*hvm_mmio_check_t)(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr); >> > +typedef int (*hvm_mmio_check_t)(struct vcpu *v, >> > + unsigned long addr, >> > + unsigned long length); >> >> I don't think this really needs to be "long"? >> > > For consistency with the mmio read and write function types I went with > 'long'. Is there any harm in that?
Generally generates worse code (due to the need for the REX64 prefix on all involved instructions). Perhaps the other ones don't need sizes/lengths passed as longs either? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
