El 18/01/16 a les 16.24, Andrew Cooper ha escrit:
> 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.
What about using ULL or simply casting to uint64_t?
Roger.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
