On 12/08/16 11:50, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> 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?
Yes. Sorry for the confusion. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
