[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 04/11] public: xen.h: add definitions for UUID handling
Hi Jan, On 11/10/17 09:54, Jan Beulich wrote: On 11.10.17 at 01:24, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:--- a/xen/include/public/xen.h +++ b/xen/include/public/xen.h @@ -930,6 +930,39 @@ __DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint16, uint16_t); __DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint32, uint32_t); __DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint64, uint64_t);+typedef struct {+ uint8_t a[16]; +} xen_uuid_t; + +/* + * XEN_DEFINE_UUID(0x00112233, 0x4455, 0x6677, 0x8899, + * 0xaa, 0xbb, 0xcc, 0xdd, 0xee, 0xff) + * will construct UUID 00112233-4455-6677-8899-aabbccddeeff presented as + * {0x00, 0x11, 0x22, 0x33, 0x44, 0x55, 0x66, 0x77, 0x88, + * 0x99, 0xaa, 0xbb, 0xcc, 0xdd, 0xee, 0xff}; + * + * NB: This is compatible with Linux kernel and with libuuid, but it is not + * compatible with Microsoft, as they use mixed-endian encoding (some + * components are little-endian, some are big-endian). + */ +#define XEN_DEFINE_UUID_(a, b, c, d, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6) \ + {{((a) >> 24) & 0xFF, ((a) >> 16) & 0xFF, \ + ((a) >> 8) & 0xFF, ((a) >> 0) & 0xFF, \ + ((b) >> 8) & 0xFF, ((b) >> 0) & 0xFF, \ + ((c) >> 8) & 0xFF, ((c) >> 0) & 0xFF, \ + ((d) >> 8) & 0xFF, ((d) >> 0) & 0xFF, \ + e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6}} + +/* Compound literals are supported in C99 and later. */ +#if defined (__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L +#define XEN_DEFINE_UUID(a, b, c, d, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6) \ + ((xen_uuid_t)XEN_DEFINE_UUID_(a, b, c, d, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6)) +#else +#define XEN_DEFINE_UUID(a, b, c, d, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6) \ + XEN_DEFINE_UUID_(a, b, c, d, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6) + +#endif /* defined (__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L */ + #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ *//* Default definitions for macros used by domctl/sysctl. */This looks good to me, but I would like to get Jan's opinion on this. Ideally we would commit the series tomorrow before the code freeze.While I can live with it being the way it is now, I've already indicated that I'd prefer __GNUC__ to also be checked for here. As that's a relaxation, it wouldn't be a problem to add later, I think (but I can't exclude I'm overlooking something, so it would feel better if it was done the intended final way from the beginning). To be clear, you ask to do:#if defined(__GNUC__) || (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) am I correct? Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |