On 08.09.21 18:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.09.2021 17:14, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 08.09.21 17:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.09.2021 15:33, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>> static void guest_bar_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
>>>> uint32_t val, void *data)
>>>> {
>>>> struct vpci_bar *bar = data;
>>>> bool hi = false;
>>>>
>>>> if ( bar->type == VPCI_BAR_MEM64_HI )
>>>> {
>>>> ASSERT(reg > PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0);
>>>> bar--;
>>>> hi = true;
>>>> }
>>>> else
>>>> {
>>>> val &= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
>>>> val |= bar->type == VPCI_BAR_MEM32 ?
>>>> PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_32
>>>> :
>>>> PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64;
>>>> val |= bar->prefetchable ? PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_PREFETCH : 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> bar->guest_addr &= ~(0xffffffffull << (hi ? 32 : 0));
>> Do you think this needs to be 0xfffffffful, not 0xffffffffull?
>>
>> e.g. s/ull/ul
> If guest_addr is uint64_t then ull would seem more correct to me,
> especially when considering (hypothetical?) 32-bit architectures
> potentially wanting to use this code.
Ok, then I'll keep ull
>
> Jan
>
Thank you,
Oleksandr
