On Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:16:45 Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i dont think there's ever any true need (and good cause) to force
integer type casts like that at the callee site.
Unless you mean we should do something like this:
static inline void
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:42:48PM -0200, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
- wrmsrl(MSR_CSTAR, ia32_cstar_target);
+ wrmsrl(MSR_CSTAR, (u64)ia32_cstar_target);
Hmm, why do you add explicit casts? The compiler should convert that
correctly on
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:42:48PM -0200, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
- wrmsrl(MSR_CSTAR, ia32_cstar_target);
+ wrmsrl(MSR_CSTAR, (u64)ia32_cstar_target);
Hmm, why do you add explicit casts? The compiler should convert that
correctly
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i dont think there's ever any true need (and good cause) to force
integer type casts like that at the callee site.
Unless you mean we should do something like this:
static inline void __wrmsrl(unsigned int msr, unsigned long long val);
#define
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With PVOPS on it gives compiler warnings without that explict cast.
Without looking at the code, IIRC with non-PVOPS it is a macro
directly into asm, so it didn't matter what the cast was. But with
PVOPS
This patch goes one step forward in consolidating the msr.h header.
It shares code between i386 and x86_64, instead of duplicating the
code for tsc reading, msr reading/writing, etc.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
