| Message ID | 20190603161108.864-1-julien.grall@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [Xen-devel,v2] xen/public: arch-arm: Restrict the visibility of struct vcpu_guest_core_regs | expand |
>>> On 03.06.19 at 18:11, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: > --- 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 > + > typedef uint64_t xen_pfn_t; > #define PRI_xen_pfn PRIx64 > #define PRIu_xen_pfn PRIu64 I'm puzzled by you still adding another #if, rather than moving the block down into the existing one. You said you'd wait for Stefano's opinion, and he asked that you follow my suggestion. Did I miss some further part of the discussion? Jan
Hi Jan, On 6/4/19 8:15 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.06.19 at 18:11, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >> --- 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 >> + >> typedef uint64_t xen_pfn_t; >> #define PRI_xen_pfn PRIx64 >> #define PRIu_xen_pfn PRIu64 > > I'm puzzled by you still adding another #if, rather than moving the > block down into the existing one. You said you'd wait for Stefano's > opinion, and he asked that you follow my suggestion. Did I miss > some further part of the discussion? No I have sent the wrong version. Not sure how because the changes are correct in the branch I am using. Sorry for the inconvenience, I will resend the patch. Cheers,
diff --git a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h index eb424e8286..e9a86d8eb8 100644 --- 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 + typedef uint64_t xen_pfn_t; #define PRI_xen_pfn PRIx64 #define PRIu_xen_pfn PRIu64
Currently, the structure vcpu_guest_core_regs is part of the public API. This implies that any change in the structure should be backward compatible. However, the structure is only needed by the tools and Xen. It is also not expected to be ever used outside of that context. So we could save us some headache by only declaring the structure for Xen and tools. Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> --- This is a follow-up of the discussion [1]. 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. [1] <3c245c5b-51c6-1d0e-ad6c-42414573166f@arm.com> --- xen/include/public/arch-arm.h | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)