Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] vm_event: Sanitize vm_event response handling

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 14/09/16 16:14, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello Tamas,
> >
> > On 13/09/16 19:12, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
> > > index 53c4d78..5e9bc54 100644
> > > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
> > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
> > > @@ -121,10 +121,10 @@ typedef enum {
> > >                               p2m_to_mask(p2m_map_foreign)))
> > >
> > >  static inline
> > > -void p2m_mem_access_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v,
> > > +bool_t p2m_mem_access_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v,
> > >                                    const vm_event_response_t *rsp)
> >
> > s/bool_t/bool/ and please indent properly the second line.
> Fine by me but bool_t is used throughout p2m.h and I see no use of
> just bool. Is there actually any difference between the two to warrant
> enforcing one over the other?
bool_t has been turned into an alias to bool recently. Moving all the 
source code from one to another is a long task (very similar to mfn/gfn 
typesafe).
However, new code should use bool and not bool_t.

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel