Re: [PATCH 1/2] vm_event: Sanitize vm_event response handling

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/09/16 16:14, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Tamas,
>>>
>>> On 13/09/16 19:12, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
>>>> index 53c4d78..5e9bc54 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
>>>> @@ -121,10 +121,10 @@ typedef enum {
>>>>                               p2m_to_mask(p2m_map_foreign)))
>>>>
>>>>  static inline
>>>> -void p2m_mem_access_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v,
>>>> +bool_t p2m_mem_access_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v,
>>>>                                    const vm_event_response_t *rsp)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> s/bool_t/bool/ and please indent properly the second line.
>>
>>
>> Fine by me but bool_t is used throughout p2m.h and I see no use of
>> just bool. Is there actually any difference between the two to warrant
>> enforcing one over the other?
>
>
> bool_t has been turned into an alias to bool recently. Moving all the source
> code from one to another is a long task (very similar to mfn/gfn typesafe).
>
> However, new code should use bool and not bool_t.

Ack.

Tamas

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel