>>> On 18.01.16 at 16:09, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
> @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ struct hvm_hw_cpu {
> uint32_t error_code;
>
> #define _XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED 0
> -#define XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED (1U<<_XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED)
> - uint32_t flags;
> +#define XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED (1UL<<_XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED)
> + uint64_t flags;
> };
How is the UL going to make this safe for a 32-bit consumer?
Makes me think that, other than just said in reply to v1, it'll
indeed be better to have a separate field (with a separate
zero-check)... The (undesirable imo) alternative being to use
1L instead.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
