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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.05.19 at 11:35, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/21/19 10:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.05.19 at 20:12, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> 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.

>>> --- 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.

Jan



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