Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 11:17:36 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/17] x86/common: Align cpu_caps_cleared and
 cpu_caps_set to unsigned long
Message-ID: <20190304101736.GC32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1551494711-213533-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1551494711-213533-2-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <461f162c-694f-2bb7-f9cb-55fa915434bc@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <461f162c-694f-2bb7-f9cb-55fa915434bc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 09:33:16AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Why not instead change set_bit/clear_bit to use btsl/btrl instead of
> btsq/btrq?

At least one of the faulty users (wireless) is in generic code and needs
fixing regardless.

For better or worse; the bitmap stuff is defined to work on unsigned
long. Using it on smaller types already relies on small endian; but
further enabling just makes it worse I feel. Better have the rules be
uniform.