Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 24 (kvm)

[Jim Mattson]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:30 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:51:31PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 1/23/20 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20200123:
> > >
> > > The kvm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
> > >
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> > ../arch/x86/kvm/x86.h:363:16: warning: right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]
>
> Jim,
>
> This is due to using "unsigned long data" for kvm_dr7_valid() along with
> "return !(data >> 32);" to check for bits being set in 63:32.  Any
> objection to fixing the issue by making @data a u64?  Part of me thinks
> that's the proper behavior anyways, i.e. the helper is purely a reflection
> of the architectural requirements, the caller is responsible for dropping
> bits appropriately based on the current mode.

Why not just change that bad return statement to one of the
alternatives you had suggested previously?

I think "return !(data >> 32)" was the only suggested alternative that
doesn't work. :-)