On 01.07.2023 00:38, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 02:04:26PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.05.2023 23:25, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: >>> --- a/xen/drivers/char/xhci-dbc.c >>> +++ b/xen/drivers/char/xhci-dbc.c >>> @@ -1221,14 +1221,12 @@ static void __init cf_check >>> dbc_uart_init_postirq(struct serial_port *port) >>> * Linux's XHCI driver (as of 5.18) works without writting to the whole >>> * page, so keep it simple. >>> */ >>> - if ( rangeset_add_range(mmio_ro_ranges, >>> - PFN_DOWN((uart->dbc.bar_val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK) + >>> - uart->dbc.xhc_dbc_offset), >>> - PFN_UP((uart->dbc.bar_val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK) + >>> - uart->dbc.xhc_dbc_offset + >>> - sizeof(*uart->dbc.dbc_reg)) - 1) ) >>> - printk(XENLOG_INFO >>> - "Error while adding MMIO range of device to >>> mmio_ro_ranges\n"); >>> + if ( subpage_mmio_ro_add( >>> + (uart->dbc.bar_val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK) + >>> + uart->dbc.xhc_dbc_offset, >>> + sizeof(*uart->dbc.dbc_reg)) ) >>> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING >>> + "Error while marking MMIO range of XHCI console as R/O\n"); >> >> So how about falling back to just rangeset_add_range(mmio_ro_ranges, ...) >> in this failure case? (I did mention an alternative to doing it here in >> the comments on patch 1.) > > Or fallback to XHCI_SHARE_NONE (IOW, pci_ro_device()). > >> Also, doesn't the comment ahead of the construct become stale? > > Indeed. > >> Finally I think indentation of the function call arguments is off by one. > > How is it supposed to be? Currently it's 8 spaces over the "if", should > it be 4 spaces over the function name?
Yes. All our indentation is using a granularity of 4 spaces, of course taking into account aligning with respective items on earlier lines (the length of which may not be a multiple of 4). It is always the innermost construct relative to which the new indentation level is determined. Jan
