Re: [XEN PATCH v2 2/3] x86/uaccess: replace __{get,put}_user_bad() with STATIC_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Federico Serafini wrote:
> On 15/02/24 11:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > The important difference is: Here we're told that there was a use of
> > __put_user_bad, which is easy to grep for, and thus see how the
> > supplied function / file / line(?) relate to the ultimate problem.
> > 
> > I'm afraid I'm meanwhile confused enough by the various replies
> > containing results of experimentation that I can't really tell
> > anymore what case is best. Hence I can only restate my expectation for
> > an eventual v3: Diagnosing what the issue is, no matter whether the new
> > macro is used in another macro or in an inline function, should not
> > become meaningfully more difficult. In how far this is the case wants
> > clarifying in the description of the change.
> 
> I think the best thing at the moment is to deviate
> __{get,put}_user_bad() for Rule 16.3.
> I'll let maintainers further explore the possibility of having a
> compile-time assertion based on the assembler error.

OK. I hope Jan is OK to deviate by in-code comment.