[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 1/6] vmx: add struct vmx_msr_policy
>>> On 06.07.17 at 11:21, <sergey.dyasli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 07:57 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > > On 26.06.17 at 12:44, <sergey.dyasli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h >> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h >> > @@ -562,6 +562,350 @@ void vmx_domain_flush_pml_buffers(struct domain *d); >> > >> > void vmx_domain_update_eptp(struct domain *d); >> > >> > +union vmx_pin_based_exec_control_bits { >> > + uint32_t raw; >> > + struct { >> > + bool ext_intr_exiting:1; >> > + uint32_t :2; /* 1:2 reserved */ >> > + bool nmi_exiting:1; >> > + uint32_t :1; /* 4 reserved */ >> > + bool virtual_nmis:1; >> > + bool preempt_timer:1; >> > + bool posted_interrupt:1; >> > + uint32_t :24; /* 8:31 reserved */ >> >> This mixture of bool and uint32_t worries me - I don't think the >> resulting layout is well defined. Yes, you put suitable >> BUILD_BUG_ON()s in place to catch possible issues, but anyway. > > It was Andrew's suggestion to use bool because "It avoids subtle bugs like > foo.exec_only = (a & EXEC) truncating to zero". In the end it doesn't matter > which types are being used for bitfields, the layout depends only on the > width. Okay, I've read the text again, and I now agree that using bool ought to be fine. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |