Re: [XenARM] [MINIOS] evtchn_pending_sel issue

To:	ROSSIER Daniel <Daniel.Rossier@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [XenARM] [MINIOS] evtchn_pending_sel issue
From:	Rahul Balani <rahulb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:28:37 -0700
Cc:
Delivery-date:	Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:29:24 -0700
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=GuHUilOIb4wQfODsTrMGznEvS9TnZCbmTnKtvf2w6uc=; b=vvbx53wrpMRxAWDeyKPayY64uVIAb5KbsZ1ozktVqzfFTNTHTLNytVD5z++GSYkJiZ VitD+OuBAyi57wCa6ofWcCMo6y+7K3ejkN8ImUINSpjaXscJ/PxguYTarK8iDCAbKFRV 7cXochA9P/nprt3Iv3ybjTYd31RwL8boccF5g=
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Um8IP5Iy6FUJ3qCB17gVWHwKZ1N+VXoZN7tyCvrYZZyJhsxtXwJJQcY8WUbqvrZEfr TwTjkidTsAAh7s1f1t00J19s1GLCkhHG1ShNXyqROGIcHsljbWGyEvc7AkgXSwRzwriL 9EvOJ1IxchE5TEBxZKsWo5MueS7sqHtd6nStY=
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<D39BC4B7B612C6428144D37C54379A2F019A3DC20FB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-arm-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen ARM development <xen-arm.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-arm@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-arm>, <mailto:xen-arm-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-arm>, <mailto:xen-arm-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References:	<D39BC4B7B612C6428144D37C54379A2F019A3DC20FB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-arm-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It seems that there is a shift of one bit in the computation of l1i, since _ffs return 1 for the least significant bit (and not 0).

What do you think?

There is no shift of one bit in __ffs().. It returns the index of the first set bit in the 32-bit word.. So, it correctly returns 0 for your case.. You can check include/asm-arm/bitops.h for the definition of __ffs().. For input word = 1, all the if conditions will evaluate to true, and you will end up with k = 31-31 = 0..

-Rahul.

What I'm wondering is how it could work .. (and probably it could ;-) just something that probably I missed….

Thanks for your help

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Xen-arm mailing list
Xen-arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-arm

_______________________________________________
Xen-arm mailing list
Xen-arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-arm

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-arm

Re: [XenARM] [MINIOS] evtchn_pending_sel issue