From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753246AbXLDWO3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:14:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751656AbXLDWOW (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:14:22 -0500 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]:10795 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbXLDWOV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:14:21 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=VvVZvAMmGAIWEMidI7Ixxiq67hvo04t00gEanlBi+Z5stWpJ3B5EE6TPp9IJ0Akx0pRnkEibMFfe4yuZjzAvnUMJ54XK55zI7XQz0KqjL9FVZo9bbmV3DIycMNhzcZocMDYQVhSZWfwLE5CcF8dIuuCEiZlg85Q1/vy2Me7S85E= From: Denys Vlasenko To: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] unify paravirt parts of system.h Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:14:13 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: "Avi Kivity" , "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, ehabkost@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, ak@suse.de, chrisw@sous-sol.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com References: <11967843881946-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <4755A809.4050305@qumranet.com> <5d6222a80712041141p5fbc0c0ei68696f054cc8a303@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80712041141p5fbc0c0ei68696f054cc8a303@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712041414.14159.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 04 December 2007 11:41, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 5:18 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > There is no cr8 register on i386. This had better be protected by an > > #ifdef. > > Sure. I mentioned it in the changelog. I, however, am not sure If I > agree it should be enclosed > in ifdefs. Me and Jeremy discussed it a while ago, and we seem to > agree that for those functions > that are exclusive of one architecture, there were no need for ifdefs. > Any usage by the other arch > is a bug. > > But I admit that I'm not particularly biased here, and I can change > it, if there's agreement that > an ifdef here is the way to go. > > > (you're likely not getting an error since it's a static inline, so the > > asm is never emitted) > > Which also means it does not affect the binary in anyway. No bigger > code, no nothing. If future changes will mistakenly make 32-bit x86 call native_read_cr8(), you will get no warning. (Hmmm. Maybe as will complain, I'm not sure). If it explicitly ifdefed out for 32 bits, it's easier to detect misuse. -- vda