Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/public: arch-arm: Restrict the visibility of struct vcpu_guest_core_regs

From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/public: arch-arm: Restrict the visibility of struct vcpu_guest_core_regs
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 14:06:33 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905211406150.16404@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190521210633.B5C7i6EXUCkAb6JY-93NKtY8zHvZCZEoU7mXQwfoW30@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2f912ac-a1c6-1f07-f708-cf2935c0270f@arm.com>

On Tue, 21 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On 5/21/19 10:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 21.05.19 at 11:35, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/21/19 10:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 20.05.19 at 20:12, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > >       As this is now Xen and tools only, I am wondering whether the
> > > > > check on
> > > > >       GNU_C is still necessary. I am happy to send a follow-up patch
> > > > > (or fold
> > > > >       in this one) if it can be removed.
> > > > 
> > > > I think this should be dropped if it can be without breaking any
> > > > part of the build.
> > > This is because all the tools are part of xen.git, right?
> > 
> > Right - no-one else is supposed to define __XEN_TOOLS__, or
> > if anyone does, they're on their own.
> 
> Thanks for the information. I will do a full build check.
> 
> > 
> > > > > --- a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
> > > > > +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
> > > > > @@ -197,6 +197,7 @@
> > > > >        } while ( 0 )
> > > > >    #define set_xen_guest_handle(hnd, val)
> > > > > set_xen_guest_handle_raw(hnd, val)
> > > > >    +#if defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__)
> > > > >    #if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)
> > > > >    /* Anonymous union includes both 32- and 64-bit names (e.g.,
> > > > > r0/x0). */
> > > > >    # define __DECL_REG(n64, n32) union {          \
> > > > > @@ -272,6 +273,8 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(vcpu_guest_core_regs_t);
> > > > >       #undef __DECL_REG
> > > > >    +#endif
> > > > 
> > > > If I was the maintainer of this code, I'd ask for the struct declaration
> > > > to be moved (into the existing #if) rather than adding a 2nd #if.
> > > 
> > > s/2nd/3rd/ ;)
> > > 
> > > The reason I haven't done that is git will generate a completely
> > > unrelated diff. So it makes quite difficult to understand the purpose of
> > > the patch.
> > 
> > Well, as said - you're the maintainer. I wouldn't be bothered overly
> > much by a strange diff that might result.
> 
> I will wait on Stefano's input.

Yes, please follow Jan's advice, thanks.

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