[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] arch/x86/xen: Silence compiler warnings
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 04:03:46PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 07/11/2014 03:54 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > >Compiler complains in the following way when x86 32-bit kernel > >with Xen support is build: > > > > CC arch/x86/xen/enlighten.o > >arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c: In function âxen_start_kernelâ: > >arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c:1726:3: warning: right shift count >= width of type > >[enabled by default] > > > >Such line contains following EFI initialization code: > > > >boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab_hi = (__u32)(__pa(efi_systab_xen) >> 32); > > > >There is no issue if x86 64-bit kernel is build. However, 32-bit case > >generate warning (even if that code will not be executed because Xen > >does not work on 32-bit EFI platforms) due to __pa() returning unsigned long > >type which has 32-bits width. So move whole EFI initialization stuff > >to separate function and build its body conditionally to avoid above > >mentioned warning on x86 32-bit architecture. > > > >Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c > >index bc89647..6abec74 100644 > >--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c > >+++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c > >@@ -1516,12 +1516,32 @@ static void __init xen_pvh_early_guest_init(void) > > #endif > > } > >+static void __init xen_efi_init(void) > >+{ > >+#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_EFI > >+ efi_system_table_t *efi_systab_xen; > >+ > >+ efi_systab_xen = xen_efi_probe(); > >+ > >+ if (efi_systab_xen == NULL) > >+ return; > >+ > >+ strncpy((char *)&boot_params.efi_info.efi_loader_signature, "Xen", > >+ sizeof(boot_params.efi_info.efi_loader_signature)); > >+ boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab = (__u32)__pa(efi_systab_xen); > >+ boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab_hi = (__u32)(__pa(efi_systab_xen) >> > >32); > >+ > >+ set_bit(EFI_BOOT, &efi.flags); > >+ set_bit(EFI_PARAVIRT, &efi.flags); > >+ set_bit(EFI_64BIT, &efi.flags); > >+#endif > >+} > >+ > > /* First C function to be called on Xen boot */ > > asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_start_kernel(void) > > { > > struct physdev_set_iopl set_iopl; > > int rc; > >- efi_system_table_t *efi_systab_xen; > > if (!xen_start_info) > > return; > >@@ -1717,18 +1737,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init > >xen_start_kernel(void) > > xen_setup_runstate_info(0); > >- efi_systab_xen = xen_efi_probe(); > >- > >- if (efi_systab_xen) { > >- strncpy((char *)&boot_params.efi_info.efi_loader_signature, > >"Xen", > >- > >sizeof(boot_params.efi_info.efi_loader_signature)); > >- boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab = (__u32)__pa(efi_systab_xen); > >- boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab_hi = > >(__u32)(__pa(efi_systab_xen) >> 32); > >- > >- set_bit(EFI_BOOT, &efi.flags); > >- set_bit(EFI_PARAVIRT, &efi.flags); > >- set_bit(EFI_64BIT, &efi.flags); > >- } > >+ xen_efi_init(); > > I'd put ifdef CONFIG_XEN_EFI around the call instead of having it > inside the routine. Well, I thought about that a bit and I prefer function like Konrad. Could you agree with him which solution do you (as maintainers) prefer? Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |