Re: [Xen-devel] [PULL 21/29] xen/pt: Sync up the dev.config and data values.

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:07:02AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > CC Konrad
> > 
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 10/09/2015 19:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +        switch (reg->size) {
> > > > +        case 1: rc = xen_host_pci_get_byte(&s->real_device, offset, 
> > > > (uint8_t *)&val);
> > > 
> > > A bit ugly, and it relies on the host being little endian.
> > > 
> > > > +                break;
> > > > +        case 2: rc = xen_host_pci_get_word(&s->real_device, offset, 
> > > > (uint16_t *)&val);
> > > 
> > > Same here.
> > 
> > cpu_to_le32?
> > 
> > But in practice, Xen being little endian only, I doubt that 
> > xen_pt_config_init.c
> > would actually work on be.
> > 
> > 
> > > > +                break;
> > > > +        case 4: rc = xen_host_pci_get_long(&s->real_device, offset, 
> > > > &val);
> > > > +                break;
> > > > +        default: assert(1);
> > > 
> > > This should be assert(0) or, better, abort().
> 
> OK. Stefano, do you want me to:
> 
>  1). Rebase the patches on top of your tag?

Patches are already upstream, so no worries about rebasing.


>  2). Send an follow up patch to change this to abort()? (and wherever else I 
> used
>      assert(..)?

Yes, that would be good.


>  3). Wait till Paolo is done going through the patchset and then revisit 1) 
> or 2)?

I don't know if Paolo has any more comments.

Regarding his previous comment on little-endian, as I wrote I am not
sure if sprinkling around some cpu_to_le32 would actually make
hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c much better. I'll leave that to you.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel