On 2024-02-29 18:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 17:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2024-02-29 17:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 16:27, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
@@ -179,9 +179,9 @@ void cleanup_domain_irq_mapping(struct domain
*d);
void *__ret = radix_tree_lookup(&(d)->arch.hvm.emuirq_pirq,
emuirq);\
__ret ? radix_tree_ptr_to_int(__ret) : IRQ_UNBOUND;
\
})
-#define IRQ_UNBOUND -1
-#define IRQ_PT -2
-#define IRQ_MSI_EMU -3
+#define IRQ_UNBOUND (-1)
+#define IRQ_PT (-2)
+#define IRQ_MSI_EMU (-3)
bool cpu_has_pending_apic_eoi(void);
I'd be happy to ack this change right away.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/usercopy.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/usercopy.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ unsigned int copy_from_guest_ll(void *to, const
void __user *from, unsigned int
return n;
}
-#if GUARD(1) + 0
+#if GUARD((1)) + 0
I don't even understand the need for this one, and nothing is said in
the description in that regard. Generally I'm afraid I'm averse to
such (seemingly) redundant parentheses in macro invocations.
It's because
#define UA_KEEP(args...) args
#define GUARD UA_KEEP
which would expand to #if 1 + 0, while the rule demands #if (1) + 0
I did note in the message after --- that I didn't wanna touch UA_KEEP
so
I did this instead, which I'm not particularly happy about either. I
can
remove this and deviate, there is no other issue with GUARD.
Or
#if (GUARD(1) + 0)
? To me at least that's quite a bit less odd. But I guess that still
wouldn't satisfy the rule. Perhaps even
#if (GUARD(1)) + 0
would be a little less odd, albeit there I'd already be on the edge.
Sorry for the late reply. I'll split this in v2. Solution #2 seems ok at
first glance.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
