On 18.11.2021 10:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.11.2021 09:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> If your answer is "well act
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.11.2021 09:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>> If your answer is "well actually, we didn't mean to say 'if a GSI is
> >>>
On 18.11.2021 09:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> If your answer is "well actually, we didn't mean to say 'if a GSI is
>>> mapped' in the comment, and here's a different predicate which actuall
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > If your answer is "well actually, we didn't mean to say 'if a GSI is
> > mapped' in the comment, and here's a different predicate which actually
> > inspects the state of a dpci object for v
On 04.11.2021 16:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> It might be appropriate to switch pirq_dpci to:
>
> #define pirq_dpci(d, pirq) \
> ((is_hvm_domain(d) && (pirq)) ? &(pirq)->arch.hvm.dpci : NULL)
I don't see how this would help suppress the warning.
> Or to an inline helper.
I expect it's a mac
Roger Pau Monné writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.16] x86/passthrough: Fix
hvm_gsi_eoi() build with GCC 12"):
> I honestly don't think we expect any property of pirq_dpci, it just
> tells whether a pirq has a dpci associated with it or not. As I said
> on my previous replies I thi
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 04/11/2021 08:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 03.11.2021 17:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] x86/passthrough: Fix hvm_gsi_eoi() build
> >>> with GCC 12"):
> >
On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 08:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.11.2021 17:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] x86/passthrough: Fix hvm_gsi_eoi() build
>>> with GCC 12"):
On 27.10.2021 22:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> if ( !((pirq) ? &(p
On 04/11/2021 08:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.11.2021 17:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] x86/passthrough: Fix hvm_gsi_eoi() build
>> with GCC 12"):
>>> On 27.10.2021 22:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
if ( !((pirq) ? &(pirq)->arch.hvm.dpci : NULL) )
>>> I disagree with
On 03.11.2021 17:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] x86/passthrough: Fix hvm_gsi_eoi() build
> with GCC 12"):
>> On 27.10.2021 22:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> if ( !((pirq) ? &(pirq)->arch.hvm.dpci : NULL) )
>>
>> I disagree with the compiler's analysis: While &(pirq)->arc
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] x86/passthrough: Fix hvm_gsi_eoi() build with
GCC 12"):
> On 27.10.2021 22:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > if ( !((pirq) ? &(pirq)->arch.hvm.dpci : NULL) )
>
> I disagree with the compiler's analysis: While &(pirq)->arch.hvm.dpci
> indeed can't be NULL, that's not
11 matches
Mail list logo
