lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:52:53 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: change API for requests to match bit operations On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:49:35 +0100 Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100 > > Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> wrote: > > > +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > > Should we make req unsigned long as well, so that it matches the bit > > api even more? > > The bitops API is inconsistent among architectures; some are int, some > are unsigned int, some are unsigned long, and x86 is long. If we want > to be consistent with something, then, IMO, we should be consistent with > asm-generic/bitops, which is int, but actually unsigned makes more sense > to me... Inconsistent interfaces are great :/ Having (any) unsigned value makes the most sense to me as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists