>>> On 11.08.16 at 19:38, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 11/08/16 17:44, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 11.08.16 at 18:32, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> On 11/08/16 13:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> @@ -2893,7 +2894,6 @@ x86_emulate( >>>> goto swint; >>>> >>>> case 0xcd: /* int imm8 */ >>>> - src.val = insn_fetch_type(uint8_t); >>>> swint_type = x86_swint_int; >>>> swint: >>>> rc = inject_swint(swint_type, src.val, >>> I would be tempted to and an explicit (uint8_t) here, so that injection >>> doesn't break if the prototype of inject_swint() changes. >> I guess I'll leave it that way, for two reasons: >> - One shouldn't change prototypes without checking whether callers >> cope. > > Indeed, but that doesn't alter the fact that you, I, and others we have > reviewed code from have managed to do precisely this, and break things.
Well, okay, will do that then. >> - Here you basically suggest the opposite of what you wish done to >> the earlier patch for the jmp_rel() invocations. > > jmp_rel() is a macro not a function, but in hindsight, I rescind that > request. As that was the only change request to that other patch, may I translate that to an ack / R-b for it then? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel