Hi,
On 10/03/2022 07:34, Juergen Gross wrote:
@@ -1520,7 +1460,10 @@ static bool check_multicall_32bit_clean(struct
multicall_entry *multi)
{
int i;
- for ( i = 0; i < arm_hypercall_table[multi->op].nr_args; i++ )
+ if ( multi->op >= ARRAY_SIZE(hypercall_args) )
+ return true;
NIT: This change reads odd to me. So I would prefer...
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < hypercall_args[multi->op]; i++ )
{
if ( unlikely(multi->args[i] & 0xffffffff00000000ULL) )
{
@@ -1537,28 +1480,13 @@ static bool check_multicall_32bit_clean(struct
multicall_entry *multi)
enum mc_disposition arch_do_multicall_call(struct mc_state *state)
{
struct multicall_entry *multi = &state->call;
- arm_hypercall_fn_t call = NULL;
-
- if ( multi->op >= ARRAY_SIZE(arm_hypercall_table) )
... if we keep this checks. So we don't return true in
check_multicall_32bit_clean() when the hypercall doesn't exist.
The code still do the right thing, so either way:
Reviewed-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
