On 18/01/16 15:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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.
I am happy either way. My R-b stands.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
