[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [PATCH] x86/shadow: fix DO_UNSHADOW()
When adding the HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK() I failed to properly recognize the (somewhat unusually formatted) if() around the call to hash_domain_foreach()). Gcc 11 is absolutely right in pointing out the apparently misleading indentation. Besides adding the missing braces, also adjust the two oddly formatted if()-s in the macro. Fixes: 90629587e16e ("x86/shadow: replace stale literal numbers in hash_{vcpu,domain}_foreach()") Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> --- I'm puzzled as to why this bug didn't cause any fallout. --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c @@ -2220,8 +2220,8 @@ void sh_remove_shadows(struct domain *d, */ #define DO_UNSHADOW(_type) do { \ t = (_type); \ - if( !(pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) \ - || !(pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \ + if ( !(pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) || \ + !(pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \ break; \ smfn = shadow_hash_lookup(d, mfn_x(gmfn), t); \ if ( unlikely(!mfn_valid(smfn)) ) \ @@ -2235,11 +2235,13 @@ void sh_remove_shadows(struct domain *d, sh_unpin(d, smfn); \ else if ( sh_type_has_up_pointer(d, t) ) \ sh_remove_shadow_via_pointer(d, smfn); \ - if( !fast \ - && (pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) \ - && (pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \ + if ( !fast && \ + (pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) && \ + (pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \ + { \ HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK(SHF_page_type_mask); \ hash_domain_foreach(d, masks[t], callbacks, smfn); \ + } \ } while (0) DO_UNSHADOW(SH_type_l2_32_shadow);
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |