On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:52:47AM -0800, Dor Laor wrote:
> What about 'if (pdpte & 0xfff001e7ull > 0x1)' ?
> Although the original is more readable.
The original is better, perhaps with a nice comment :-)
Cheers,
Muli
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> pdpte == 2 is a legal value. in the original code, the (pdpte & 1)
> == 0 and we don't 'goto out'. In the patched code, (pdpte & 0xblah)
> == 2 and we 'goto out'.
Yup, I got it now. Thanks.
Cheers,
Muli
Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> What about 'if (pdpte & 0xfff001e7ull > 0x1)' ?
>>
>
> That would work.
Actually it doesn't. pdpte == 2 fails.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
Using Tomc
Dor Laor wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:kvm-devel-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muli Ben-Yehuda
>> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:46 PM
>> To: Avi Kivity
>> Cc: kvm-devel
>> Subject: Re: [kvm-dev
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:kvm-devel-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muli Ben-Yehuda
>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:46 PM
>To: Avi Kivity
>Cc: kvm-devel
>Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] simplify pdpte check
>
>On Thu, Feb 0
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>>
>>> Small cleanup: we check (pdpte & 1) && (pdpte & constant). Instead
>>> just check (pdpte & (constant | 1)).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >Small cleanup: we check (pdpte & 1) && (pdpte & constant). Instead
> >just check (pdpte & (constant | 1)).
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Index: kernel/kvm_main.c
> >===
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> Small cleanup: we check (pdpte & 1) && (pdpte & constant). Instead
> just check (pdpte & (constant | 1)).
>
> Signed-off-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Index: kernel/kvm_main.c
> ===
> --- kernel/k
