Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] xen/x86: move domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize() into pv32 code

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 17.12.2025 00:13, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h
> @@ -619,8 +619,16 @@ void __iomem *ioremap_wc(paddr_t pa, size_t len);
>  
>  extern int memory_add(unsigned long spfn, unsigned long epfn, unsigned int 
> pxm);
>  
> -unsigned int domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize(struct domain *d, unsigned int bits);
> -#define domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize(d, bits) domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize(d, 
> bits)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV32
> +#define domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize(d, bits) ({                               
>   \
> +    struct domain *_d = (d);                                                 
>   \

This imo wants to be pointer-to-const. Question is whether then I'm upsetting 
you
again, Andrew?

> +    ((_d &&                                                                  
>   \
> +      _d->arch.physaddr_bitsize)                                             
>   \
> +         ? min_t(unsigned int, _d->arch.physaddr_bitsize, bits)              
>   \
> +         : bits);                                                            
>   \

This imo wants to look more like

    ((_d && _d->arch.physaddr_bitsize)                      \
     ? min_t(unsigned int, _d->arch.physaddr_bitsize, bits) \
     : (bits));                                             \

The parenthesization of the latter use of "bits" is a must.

With the adjustments (happy to carry out while committing, so long as there's
agreement):
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Albeit, as indicated before, I'm not quite happy with the use of min_t(). Maybe
another macro-local variable _bits should be introduced?

Jan