Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from PARAVIRT_XXL

From: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>,
	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from PARAVIRT_XXL
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:42:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c0917f5a-ffec-d422-bf8b-8c8859ea4312@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8506b0cd-6f7e-7505-d9b9-e1468cefa4ec@oracle.com>

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