Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86: adjustments to guest handle treatment

[Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>]

Hi Jan,

On 05/05/2020 07:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.04.2020 10:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> First of all avoid excessive conversions. copy_{from,to}_guest(), for
>>> example, work fine with all of XEN_GUEST_HANDLE{,_64,_PARAM}().
>>>
>>> Further
>>> - do_physdev_op_compat() didn't use the param form for its parameter,
>>> - {hap,shadow}_track_dirty_vram() wrongly used the param form,
>>> - compat processor Px logic failed to check compatibility of native and
>>>    compat structures not further converted.
>>>
>>> As this eliminates all users of guest_handle_from_param() and as there's
>>> no real need to allow for conversions in both directions, drop the
>>> macros as well.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> [...]
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
>>> @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ int do_pm_op(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op
>>>       return ret;
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> -int acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 acpi_id, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(uint32) pdc)
>>> +int acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 acpi_id, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint32) pdc)
>>
>> Nit: switch to uint32_t while there?
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> 
> Unless I hear objections, I'm intending to commit this then in a
> day or two with the suggested change made and the R-b given. Of
> course a formally required ack for the Arm side dropping of
> guest_handle_from_param() would still be nice ...

I missed the small change on Arm sorry:

Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall