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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200124173302.2c3228b2@canb.auug.org.au> <38d53302-b700-b162-e766-2e2a461fc569@infradead.org>
 <20200124213027.GP2109@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200124213027.GP2109@linux.intel.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:48:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CALMp9eRvoZZ=7P3uCg3oqXzvV1WZc9mkzTJh8+=vmEh7xs5BTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 24 (kvm)
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:30 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:51:31PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 1/23/20 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20200123:
> > >
> > > The kvm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
> > >
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> > ../arch/x86/kvm/x86.h:363:16: warning: right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]
>
> Jim,
>
> This is due to using "unsigned long data" for kvm_dr7_valid() along with
> "return !(data >> 32);" to check for bits being set in 63:32.  Any
> objection to fixing the issue by making @data a u64?  Part of me thinks
> that's the proper behavior anyways, i.e. the helper is purely a reflection
> of the architectural requirements, the caller is responsible for dropping
> bits appropriately based on the current mode.

Why not just change that bad return statement to one of the
alternatives you had suggested previously?

I think "return !(data >> 32)" was the only suggested alternative that
doesn't work. :-)