[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [BUG] x2apic broken with current AMD hardware
- To: Elliott Mitchell <ehem+xen@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 16:52:15 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=whgh7E4wYCKa5w7i14KUbrAoNj8Edyj89uGBumGUEDk=; b=O/pdKBmLEWffyKYWWDk3OaW9uYvwin/v0bpTOvVCq3P2vy98WSyLj0MYvcZ1RpUk4zFPYh7CLi0hmnN9aE8TpIZXsOaKyZeKB3ZOKXZiQhHFkHMXwxKtXkA5fyz5L+J+wENsoldZ/6qrsqFphCObqFU0F4Qw5rILjIQ0RMfI/Pq6C0do0bZHp5KbBfssy2o13KsksY+ZpkU4ll2/uZdEo2dLhvGjinLscE9vLa6AhpmTBvIFfpzJTmqTPPk8zKsFtkSTT3XGJ5xbKYqPSMVgnq7UyarN6hPsHZwUVmq9wItXW4canxbrBwGuEMQ+aZOB4yn7jxl9DPbf/UL/ElSYsg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JNU8UU1C9nSSzG3pXKeeuMTMtlknPnlyI1ckpkztK9dQeI1Lteb/mWYMLyhhxHgMc/7IDofA9loyAQGgT3mQB1PcyzpEmiF1wtKo+sTwdi8XW14UlbhenUH3FTaJSSmGo7UyNLRpaiCtsvEEd6737rsZCM+TgZgvvGzeYnGXNFyFYbVYtYxpUlXFpq6Lnd0w4TjbCh8dKmkAhJ5saYvsi1wYgT9qtBuFnk6dpqgtet1NnAGNe8DAP07ZUZohYbjfXc/6kLaK/odQRANVIVeZAwoP/czzwYsW/ZdgmVbIDxTpW5MfPxHfWANen6/AfncJPs494W9knUZg5OFmQt6+dQ==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Neowutran <xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 15:52:34 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 20.03.2023 16:37, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:14:17AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> I'm tempted to propose allowing _Static_assert() since it is valuable
>>> functionality for preventing issues.
>>
>> How does _Static_assert() come into play here? Also note that we already
>> use it when available ...
>
> This is more in relation to the patch. Appears GCC's C90 mode disables
> _Static_assert(), so the _Static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(args) == 8) had to be
> dropped.
I'm puzzled by this. It's been for a long time that we've been building
with -std=gnu99. Plus you simply open-coded BUILD_BUG_ON() - if you had
used it, it would have taken care of the necessary abstraction for you
anyway.
Jan
|
