[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from PARAVIRT_XXL
- To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:42:51 +0200
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Deep Shah <sdeep@xxxxxxxxxx>, "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:43:07 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 10.08.20 18:53, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 8/10/20 12:39 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 09.08.20 04:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
@@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val)
{
pteval_t ret;
- if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long))
- ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >>
32);
- else
- ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
+ ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
return (pte_t) { .pte = ret };
Can this now simply return (pte_t) ret?
I don't think so, but I can turn it into
return native_make_pte(PVOP_CALLEE1(...));
I thought that since now this is only built for 64-bit we don't have to
worry about different pte_t definitions and can do what we do for
example, for __pgd()?
Yes, I did that:
return (pte_t) { ret };
Juergen
|
