On 2 October 2018 at 13:34, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:19 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 27 September 2018 at 01:24, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This series fix a bug I'v been hunting for a long time. >> > >> > With BE regions, if the guest used smaller access than the region >> > implementation, the shift value is negative, but since access_fn() >> > uses unsigned type for shift, it result in a huge positive value, >> > then accessors shift the value which eventually becomes 0. >> > >> > The fix is simply to use signed type for the shift, and shift to >> > the opposite direction for negative values. >> >> Series >> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > Thanks for reviewing this. > >> I guess we don't have very many devices that are BE and >> that allow the guest to access them with a smaller >> width than their implemented width... > > Do you think is it worth using the '(un)likely()' macros?
Probably not; that was just a comment on why we haven't run into the bug sooner. thanks -- PMM
