[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/public: arch-arm: Restrict the visibility of struct vcpu_guest_core_regs
Hi Jan,
On 5/21/19 10:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.05.19 at 11:35, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/21/19 10:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.05.19 at 20:12, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
As this is now Xen and tools only, I am wondering whether the check on
GNU_C is still necessary. I am happy to send a follow-up patch (or fold
in this one) if it can be removed.
I think this should be dropped if it can be without breaking any
part of the build.
This is because all the tools are part of xen.git, right?
Right - no-one else is supposed to define __XEN_TOOLS__, or
if anyone does, they're on their own.
Thanks for the information. I will do a full build check.
--- a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
@@ -197,6 +197,7 @@
} while ( 0 )
#define set_xen_guest_handle(hnd, val) set_xen_guest_handle_raw(hnd, val)
+#if defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__)
#if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)
/* Anonymous union includes both 32- and 64-bit names (e.g., r0/x0). */
# define __DECL_REG(n64, n32) union { \
@@ -272,6 +273,8 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(vcpu_guest_core_regs_t);
#undef __DECL_REG
+#endif
If I was the maintainer of this code, I'd ask for the struct declaration
to be moved (into the existing #if) rather than adding a 2nd #if.
s/2nd/3rd/ ;)
The reason I haven't done that is git will generate a completely
unrelated diff. So it makes quite difficult to understand the purpose of
the patch.
Well, as said - you're the maintainer. I wouldn't be bothered overly
much by a strange diff that might result.
I will wait on Stefano's input.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
