On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 18.09.14 at 12:37, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Tamas K Lengyel <
> > tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >>> On 17.09.14 at 22:51, <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> wrote:
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de>
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>> with one minor remark:
> >>>
> >>> > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
> >>> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/p2m.h
> >>> > @@ -198,6 +198,9 @@ int arch_grant_map_page_identity(struct domain
> *d,
> >>> unsigned long frame,
> >>> >                                   bool_t writeable);
> >>> >  int arch_grant_unmap_page_identity(struct domain *d, unsigned long
> >>> frame);
> >>> >
> >>> > +/* get host p2m table */
> >>> > +#define p2m_get_hostp2m(d) (&((d)->arch.p2m))
> >>>
> >>> There's a superfluous pair of parentheses here.
> >>
> >> Ack, I find it more readable to have &() when dereferencing a pointer
> >> within the parenthesis.
> >
> > Ah, you mean around (d), I see it now.
>
> No, that one absolutely has to stay.
>
> Jan
>

Ack, Tim has already pointed that out.

Tamas