[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Use register_t type in cpuinfo entries
On 09/03/2021 09:30, Bertrand Marquis wrote: Hi Julien, Hi Bertrand, On 8 Mar 2021, at 20:48, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Bertrand, On 08/03/2021 17:18, Bertrand Marquis wrote:All cpu identification registers that we store in the cpuinfo structure are 64bit on arm64 and 32bit on arm32 so storing the values in 32bit on arm64 is removing the higher bits which might contain information in the future. This patch is changing the types in cpuinfo to register_t (which is 32bit on arm32 and 64bit on arm64) and adding the necessary paddings inside the unions.I read this as we would replace uint32_t with register_t. However, there are a few instances where you, validly, replace uint64_t with register_t. I would suggest to clarify it in the commit message.How about adding the following sentence: “For coherency uint64_t entries are also changed to register_t on 64bit systems." I think you mean consistency rather than coherency. diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c b/xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c index cae2179126..ea0dd3451e 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c @@ -321,7 +321,8 @@ void start_secondary(void) if ( !opt_hmp_unsafe && current_cpu_data.midr.bits != boot_cpu_data.midr.bits ) { - printk(XENLOG_ERR "CPU%u MIDR (0x%x) does not match boot CPU MIDR (0x%x),\n" + printk(XENLOG_ERR "CPU%u MIDR (0x%"PRIregister") does not match boot " + "CPU MIDR (0x%"PRIregister"),\n"For printk messages, we don't tend to split it like that (even for more than 80 characters one). Instead, the preferred approach is: printk(XENLOG_ERR "line 1\n" "line 2\n")Ok. Do you want me to send a v2 or can you fix this during the commit ? Both can be fixed on commit. I will queue it to my next branch soon. Cheers, -- Julien Grall
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |