[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/6] xen: introduce XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM
>>> On 17.08.12 at 15:47, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 17.08.12 at 10:02, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 18:10 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> > >>> On 16.08.12 at 17:54, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > > Seeing the patch I btw realized that there's no easy way to >> >> > > avoid having the type as a second argument in the conversion >> >> > > macros. Nevertheless I still don't like the explicitly specified type >> >> > > there. >> >> > >> >> > Btw - on the architecture(s) where the two handles are identical >> >> > I would prefer you to make the conversion functions trivial (and >> >> > thus avoid making use of the "type" parameter), thus allowing >> >> > the type checking to occur that you currently circumvent. >> >> >> >> OK, I can do that. >> > >> > Will this result in the type parameter potentially becoming stale? >> > >> > Adding a redundant pointer compare is a good way to get the compiler to >> > catch this. Smth like; >> > >> > /* Cast a XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM to XEN_GUEST_HANDLE */ >> > #define guest_handle_from_param(hnd, type) ({ >> > typeof((hnd).p) _x = (hnd).p; >> > XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(type) _y; >> > &_y == &_x; >> > hnd; >> > }) >> >> Ah yes, that's a good suggestion. >> >> > I'm not sure which two pointers of members of the various structs need >> > to be compared, maybe it's actually &_y.p and &hnd.p, but you get the >> > idea... >> >> Right, comparing (hnd).p with _y.p would be the right thing; no >> need for _x, but some other (mechanical) adjustments would be >> necessary. > > The _x variable is still useful to avoid multiple evaluations of hnd, > even though I know that this is not a public header. But we had settled on returning hnd unmodified when both handle types are the same. > What about the following: > > /* Cast a XEN_GUEST_HANDLE to XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM */ > #define guest_handle_to_param(hnd, type) ({ \ > typeof((hnd).p) _x = (hnd).p; \ > XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(type) _y = { _x }; \ > if (&_x != &_y.p) BUG(); \ > _y; \ > }) Since this is not a public header, something like this (untested, so may not compile as is) #define guest_handle_to_param(hnd, type) ({ \ (void)(typeof((hnd).p)0 == (XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(type){}).p); \ (hnd); \ }) is what I was thinking of. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |