>>> On 15.03.16 at 18:56, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/bug.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct bug_frame {
> #define BUGFRAME_warn 0
> #define BUGFRAME_bug 1
> #define BUGFRAME_assert 2
> +#define BUGFRAME_NR 3
>
> /* Many versions of GCC doesn't support the asm %c parameter which would
> * be preferable to this unpleasantness. We use mergeable string
> @@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ struct bug_frame {
> */
> #define BUG_FRAME(type, line, file, has_msg, msg) do { \
> BUILD_BUG_ON((line) >> 16); \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(type >= BUGFRAME_NR); \
The x86 variant has type properly parenthesized - why not here?
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/bug.h
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> #define BUGFRAME_warn 1
> #define BUGFRAME_bug 2
> #define BUGFRAME_assert 3
> -
> +#define BUGFRAME_NR 4
> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
Please retain the blank line.
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct bug_frame {
>
> #define BUG_FRAME(type, line, ptr, second_frame, msg) do {
> \
> BUILD_BUG_ON((line) >> (BUG_LINE_LO_WIDTH + BUG_LINE_HI_WIDTH));
> \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON((type) >= (BUGFRAME_NR));
> \
The ARM variant has BUGFRAME_NR properly un-parenthesized -
why here?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
