On 3/8/24 09:08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 7/3/24 20:43, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 17.43, Zhao Liu wrote:
>>> Hi Philippe,
>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Real ICH9 contains a single SMI output line and doesn't
>>>> broadcast CPUs.
>>>> + * Virtualized ICH9 allows broadcasting upon negatiation with
>>>> guest, see
>>>> + * commit 5ce45c7a2b.
>>>> + */
>>>> +enum {
>>>> + ICH9_VIRT_SMI_BROADCAST,
>>>> + ICH9_VIRT_SMI_CURRENT,
>>>> +#define ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT 2
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Just quick look here. Shouldn't ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT be defined
>>> outside of
>>> enum {}?
>>
>> Or even better, do it without a #define:
>>
>> enum {
>> ICH9_VIRT_SMI_BROADCAST,
>> ICH9_VIRT_SMI_CURRENT,
>> ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT
>
> This form isn't recommended as it confuses static analyzers,
> considering ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT as part of the enum.
Side comment: I didn't know about this (so thanks for the info), but
that's really a shame for those static analyzers. It's an ancient and
valid pattern. :/
>
>> };
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
