> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 24 June 2015 14:25 > To: Paul Durrant > Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Keir (Xen.org) > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 07/17] x86/hvm: add length to mmio > check op > > >>> 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? >
I'm happy to do it that way round if you don't mind the extra diffs. I'll do it as a separate patch just before this one, to ease review. Paul > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
