Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v11 6/9] xen/common: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as required

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/kernel.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/kernel.c
> > @@ -306,20 +306,25 @@ void add_taint(unsigned int flag)
> >      tainted |= flag;
> >  }
> >  
> > -extern const initcall_t __initcall_start[], __presmp_initcall_end[],
> > -    __initcall_end[];
> > +DECLARE_ARRAY_BOUNDS(initcall);
> > +typedef initcall_t presmp_initcall_t;
> > +DECLARE_ARRAY_BOUNDS(presmp_initcall);
> >  
> >  void __init do_presmp_initcalls(void)
> >  {
> >      const initcall_t *call;
> > -    for ( call = __initcall_start; call < __presmp_initcall_end; call++ )
> > +    for ( call = __presmp_initcall_start;
> > +             presmp_initcall_lt(call, __presmp_initcall_end);
> > +             call++ )
> 
> Hard tabs slipped in. Also would you mind adding the missing blank line
> ahead of the one you modify?

Argh! I'll do.


> >          (*call)();
> >  }
> >  
> >  void __init do_initcalls(void)
> >  {
> >      const initcall_t *call;
> > -    for ( call = __presmp_initcall_end; call < __initcall_end; call++ )
> > +    for ( call = __initcall_start;
> > +          initcall_lt(call, __initcall_end);
> > +          call++ )
> 
> Again no need for splitting the line as it seems.

Actually it was 79 in the other case and 78 here, so I'll fix both.

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