[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e20895f0-09d9-5909-f3ce-8b93695c9676@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:13:18 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/17] x86/common: Align cpu_caps_cleared and
cpu_caps_set to unsigned long
On 04/03/19 13:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 11:48:18AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> True that. On the other hand btsl/btrl is also one byte smaller if no
>> operand is %r8-%r15.
>
> Because then we loose the REX prefix, right. Now _that_ might actually
> be a reason to do that :-)
I knew that would be the right way to put it for you. :)
>> In any case, /me wonders if we should have a macro like
>>
>> #define DECLARE_LE_BITMAP(name,bits) \
>> u32 name[DIV_ROUND_UP(bits, 32)] __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long))
>
> s/u32/__le32/
>
> To go in bitops/le.h, sure, if there's enough users.
Hmm... actually that should be "BITS_TO_LONGS(bits) * sizeof(unsigned
long) / 4" because bitmap functions may access (or even clear) the last
word as 64 bits.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists