From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD388E68 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:43:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2016 18:43:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,315,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="884263136" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2016 18:43:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:46:03 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: "Xie, Huawei" Message-ID: <20160119024603.GG19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1452581944-24838-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1452832571-6156-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1452832571-6156-8-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <20160119013659.GF19531@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 7/8] virtio: add 1.0 support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:57 -0000 On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:51:30AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote: > On 1/19/2016 9:34 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:07:51PM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote: > >> .On 1/15/2016 12:34 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >>> Modern (v1.0) virtio pci device defines several pci capabilities. > >>> Each cap has a configure structure corresponding to it, and the > >>> cap.bar and cap.offset fields tell us where to find it. > >>> > >> [snip] > >>> + > >>> +static inline void > >>> +io_write64_twopart(uint64_t val, uint32_t *lo, uint32_t *hi) > >>> +{ > >>> + io_write32((uint32_t)val, lo); > >>> + io_write32(val >> 32, hi); > >> Firstly your second iowrite32 doesn't do the conversion. > > Because it's not necessary. The first one is for retrieving the low 32 > > bits. > > I don't mean the shift operation, but the conversion from 64bit to 32bit. > Same applied to below. It's more than a casting here: it's same as "val & (1<<32 - 1)", as stated above, to retrieve the low 32 bits. I know it still could work without it, but, hey, what's wrong to make it explicit? --yliu