Jork Loeser <[email protected]> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 04:27 >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; KY Srinivasan <[email protected]>; >> Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>; Stephen Hemminger >> <[email protected]>; Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>; Ingo >> Molnar <[email protected]>; H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]>; Steven >> Rostedt <[email protected]>; Jork Loeser <[email protected]> >> Subject: [PATCH 4/7] x86/hyperv: implement rep hypercalls > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h >> b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h index 9a5f58b..a2c996b 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h >> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ >> #include <linux/types.h> >> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >> #include <linux/clocksource.h> >> +#include <linux/nmi.h> >> #include <asm/hyperv.h> >> >> /* >> @@ -253,6 +254,26 @@ static inline u64 hv_do_fast_hypercall8(u16 code, >> u64 input1) #endif } >> >> +static inline u64 hv_do_rep_hypercall(u16 code, u16 rep_count, void >> *input, >> + void *output) >> +{ >> + union hv_hypercall_input hc_input = { .code = code, >> + .rep_count = rep_count}; > > Is there a way to statically verify the re-count not to exceed 12 bits? Could > a dynamic check be justified? Perhaps a function comment?
I'd like to avoid dynamic checks here to keep this as fast as possible. Static check is probably not an option as even the only user we have now calculates this parameter dynamically. I'll add a comment to the function, thanks! -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
