[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen: event channel arrays are xen_ulong_t and not unsigned long

To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:54:44 +0000
Cc: "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:55:05 +0000
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

On 14/02/13 14:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On ARM we want these to be the same size on 32- and 64-bit.
> 
> This is an ABI change on ARM. X86 does not change.

Does this actually work for all possible events?  In a 32-bit guest on a
64-bit hypervisor, does the __ffs() find set bits in the upper 32-bit
word of the pending selector?  I don't think so.

David

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

References:
- [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/NN] linux: public interface changes for arm
  - From: Ian Campbell
- [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen: event channel arrays are xen_ulong_t and not unsigned long
  - From: Ian Campbell

Prev by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: Force removal of memory range when not covered by MTRRs
Next by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: Force removal of memory range when not covered by MTRRs
Previous by thread: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen: event channel arrays are xen_ulong_t and not unsigned long
Next by thread: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make start_info x86 specific.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.