On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 16/10/2023 10:02, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 13/10/2023 16:24, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > > Add missing parameter name, no functional change.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.seraf...@bugseng.com>
> > > ---
> > > xen/arch/arm/traps.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> > > index ce89f16404..5aa14d4707 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> > > @@ -1236,7 +1236,7 @@ int do_bug_frame(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
> > > vaddr_t pc)
> > > if ( id == BUGFRAME_run_fn )
> > > {
> > > - void (*fn)(const struct cpu_user_regs *) = (void
> > > *)regs->BUG_FN_REG;
> > > + void (*fn)(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs) = (void
> > > *)regs->BUG_FN_REG;
> >
> > Now the line will be over 80 characters. I think we should introduce a
> > typedef. This would also help in the longer run to validate that the
> > function passed to run_in_exception_handle() has the expected prototype.
>
> I see this patch was committed in your for-4.19 branch. But this comment was
> unaddressed. Can you drop the patch because your branch is committed in
> staging?
I dropped the patch. Federico, please address Julien's feedback.
