Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86: adjustments to guest handle treatment

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.04.2020 10:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> First of all avoid excessive conversions. copy_{from,to}_guest(), for
>> example, work fine with all of XEN_GUEST_HANDLE{,_64,_PARAM}().
>>
>> Further
>> - do_physdev_op_compat() didn't use the param form for its parameter,
>> - {hap,shadow}_track_dirty_vram() wrongly used the param form,
>> - compat processor Px logic failed to check compatibility of native and
>>   compat structures not further converted.
>>
>> As this eliminates all users of guest_handle_from_param() and as there's
>> no real need to allow for conversions in both directions, drop the
>> macros as well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>[...]
>> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
>> @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ int do_pm_op(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op
>>      return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>> -int acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 acpi_id, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(uint32) pdc)
>> +int acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 acpi_id, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint32) pdc)
> 
> Nit: switch to uint32_t while there?
> 
> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>

Unless I hear objections, I'm intending to commit this then in a
day or two with the suggested change made and the R-b given. Of
course a formally required ack for the Arm side dropping of
guest_handle_from_param() would still be nice ...

Jan