[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 06/34] x86/arm: Add BUGFRAME_NR define and BUILD checks.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:49:03AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 18.03.16 at 20:59, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I know I copied and pasted it and I must have done something uncanny. > > > > Anyhow this is what the change looks like now (I've retained the Reviewed > > and Ack as I think this change is mostly cosmetical in nature?) > > I think that's okay. > > > v5: Add Acks, make BUILD_BUG_ON checks look correct. Position the > > BUGFRAME_NR properly. > > Almost, that is. > > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h > > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > > #define BUGFRAME_bug 2 > > #define BUGFRAME_assert 3 > > > > +#define BUGFRAME_NR 4 > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > The insertion wants to go _before_ the blank line. (And in the > ARM case you then may consider removing the preceding blank > line too; in any event the ARM and x86 ones should look similar > in the end.) > Here it is. Last call :-) From f97548200461b9eb4d8187eb9e1f021c74160759 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:45:31 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] x86/arm: Add BUGFRAME_NR define and BUILD checks. So that we have a nice mechansim to figure out the upper bounds of bug.frames and also catch compiler errors in case one tries to use a higher frame number. Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> --- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> v3: First time included. v4: Add BUG_FRAME check also in the assembler version of the macro. v5: Add Acks, make BUILD_BUG_ON checks look correct. Position the BUGFRAME_NR properly. Reposition the BUGFRAME_NR again. --- --- xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h | 3 +++ xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h index ab9e811..68353e1 100644 --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ struct bug_frame { #define BUGFRAME_bug 1 #define BUGFRAME_assert 2 +#define BUGFRAME_NR 3 + /* Many versions of GCC doesn't support the asm %c parameter which would * be preferable to this unpleasantness. We use mergeable string * sections to avoid multiple copies of the string appearing in the @@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ struct bug_frame { */ #define BUG_FRAME(type, line, file, has_msg, msg) do { \ BUILD_BUG_ON((line) >> 16); \ + BUILD_BUG_ON((type) >= BUGFRAME_NR); \ asm ("1:"BUG_INSTR"\n" \ ".pushsection .rodata.str, \"aMS\", %progbits, 1\n" \ "2:\t.asciz " __stringify(file) "\n" \ diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h index e868e85..c5d2d4c 100644 --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ #define BUGFRAME_bug 2 #define BUGFRAME_assert 3 +#define BUGFRAME_NR 4 + #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ struct bug_frame { @@ -51,6 +53,7 @@ struct bug_frame { #define BUG_FRAME(type, line, ptr, second_frame, msg) do { \ BUILD_BUG_ON((line) >> (BUG_LINE_LO_WIDTH + BUG_LINE_HI_WIDTH)); \ + BUILD_BUG_ON((type) >= BUGFRAME_NR); \ asm volatile ( _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT(second_frame) \ :: _ASM_BUGFRAME_INFO(type, line, ptr, msg) ); \ } while (0) @@ -83,6 +86,11 @@ extern const struct bug_frame __start_bug_frames[], * in .rodata */ .macro BUG_FRAME type, line, file_str, second_frame, msg + + .if \type >= BUGFRAME_NR + .error "Invalid BUGFRAME index" + .endif + .L\@ud: ud2a .pushsection .rodata.str1, "aMS", @progbits, 1 -- 2.5.0 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |