[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170217105253.12ce475d.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
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