From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933532AbdBQJuT (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:50:19 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56790 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932696AbdBQJtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:49:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:49:35 +0100 From: Andrew Jones To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Marc Zyngier , Christian Borntraeger , James Hogan , Paul Mackerras , Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: change API for requests to match bit operations Message-ID: <20170217094935.u7ne57y7ko6h2mnz@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <20170216160449.13094-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <20170216160449.13094-2-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <20170217103014.5ada1f1c.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170217103014.5ada1f1c.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100 > Radim Krčmář wrote: > > +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > Should we make req unsigned long as well, so that it matches the bit > api even more? The bitops API is inconsistent among architectures; some are int, some are unsigned int, some are unsigned long, and x86 is long. If we want to be consistent with something, then, IMO, we should be consistent with asm-generic/bitops, which is int, but actually unsigned makes more sense to me... Thanks, drew