Virtualization - Aug 2020 - [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from PARAVIRT_XXL

On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val)
>  {
>  	pteval_t ret;
>  
> -	if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long))
> -		ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >> 32);
> -	else
> -		ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
> +	ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>  
>  	return (pte_t) { .pte = ret };

Can this now simply return (pte_t) ret?


-boris

On 09.08.20 04:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val)
>>   {
>>   	pteval_t ret;
>>   
>> -	if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long))
>> -		ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >>
32);
>> -	else
>> -		ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>> +	ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>>   
>>   	return (pte_t) { .pte = ret };
> 
> 
> Can this now simply return (pte_t) ret?
I don't think so, but I can turn it into

   return native_make_pte(PVOP_CALLEE1(...));


Juergen

On 8/10/20 12:39 AM, J?rgen Gro? wrote:
> On 09.08.20 04:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val)
>>> ? {
>>> ????? pteval_t ret;
>>> ? -??? if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long))
>>> -??????? ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val
>>
>>> 32);
>>> -??? else
>>> -??????? ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>>> +??? ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>>> ? ????? return (pte_t) { .pte = ret };
>>
>>
>> Can this now simply return (pte_t) ret?
>
> I don't think so, but I can turn it into
>
> ? return native_make_pte(PVOP_CALLEE1(...)); 

I thought that since now this is only built for 64-bit we don't have to
worry about different pte_t definitions and can do what we do for
example, for __pgd()?


-boris