>>> On 08.03.19 at 16:36, wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
> required"):
>> Ian Jackson 03/07/19 3:44 PM >>>
>> >Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
>> >required"):
>> >> I'd like to note though that in the firs
>>> On 08.03.19 at 16:43, wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("[PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
> required"):
>> free_xenheap_pages(p, PERCPU_ORDER);
>
> JOOI, why does free_xenheap_pages not take a void* ?
It does. It's the const that gets in the way here, not the char. And
Stefano Stabellini writes ("[PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
required"):
> Use DECLARE_BOUNDS and the two static inline functions that come with it
> for comparisons and subtractions of:
>
> __2M_rwdata_start, __2M_rwdata_end, __end_vpci_array,
> __start_vpci_array, _stextentry, _et
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
required"):
> Ian Jackson 03/07/19 3:44 PM >>>
> >Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
> >required"):
> >> I'd like to note though that in the first two cases we don't alter the
> >> declar
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
required"):
> Ian Jackson 03/07/19 3:02 PM
> >Jan, it is quite unfortunate that you are replying to Stefano to
> >disagree with things that Stefano did because I suggested them, rather
> >than replying to my patch comments.
On 08/03/2019 09:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
Ian Jackson 03/07/19 3:02 PM >>>
>> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS
>> as required"):
>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
Is the line wrapping really needed here?
>>>
>>> It would end at 80 charac
>>> Ian Jackson 03/07/19 3:02 PM >>>
>Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
>required"):
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > Is the line wrapping really needed here?
>>
>> It would end at 80 characters exactly otherwise. I am happy to do as you
>>> Ian Jackson 03/07/19 3:44 PM >>>
>Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
>required"):
>> I'd like to note though that in the first two cases we don't alter the
>> declared object anyway, but instead a derived one; the declaration
>> should not use const for ot
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
required"):
> I'd like to note though that in the first two cases we don't alter the
> declared object anyway, but instead a derived one; the declaration
> should not use const for other reasons though. And the 3rd case is
> f
On 3/7/19 2:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS
> as required"):
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Is the line wrapping really needed here?
>>
>> It would end at 80 characters exactly otherwise. I am happy to do as you
Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
required"):
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Is the line wrapping really needed here?
>
> It would end at 80 characters exactly otherwise. I am happy to do as you
> prefer.
Certainly I prefer lines to end
Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] xen/x86: use DECLARE_BOUNDS as
required"):
> This is problematic. We have also the following instances in this series
> to deal with:
>
> xen/arch/arm/percpu.c:_free_percpu_area
> char *p = (char *)__per_cpu_start + __per_cpu_offset[cpu];
>
> xen
>>> On 06.03.19 at 22:38, wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, wrote:
>> > @@ -600,7 +602,9 @@ static void noinline init_done(void)
>> > unregister_init_virtual_region();
>> >
>> > /* Zero the .init code and data. */
>> > -for ( va = __init_
>>> On 06.03.19 at 22:05, wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, wrote:
>> > @@ -600,7 +602,9 @@ static void noinline init_done(void)
>> > unregister_init_virtual_region();
>> >
>> > /* Zero the .init code and data. */
>> > -for ( va = __init_
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, wrote:
> > @@ -600,7 +602,9 @@ static void noinline init_done(void)
> > unregister_init_virtual_region();
> >
> > /* Zero the .init code and data. */
> > -for ( va = __init_begin; va < _p(__init_end); va += PAGE_SIZ
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/percpu.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/percpu.c
> > @@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR_CPUS];
> > * context of PV guests.
> > */
> > #define INVALID_PERCPU_AREA (0x8000L - (l
>>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, wrote:
> @@ -600,7 +602,9 @@ static void noinline init_done(void)
> unregister_init_virtual_region();
>
> /* Zero the .init code and data. */
> -for ( va = __init_begin; va < _p(__init_end); va += PAGE_SIZE )
> +for ( va = (char *)__init_begin;
> +
>>> On 05.03.19 at 23:38, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/percpu.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/percpu.c
> @@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR_CPUS];
> * context of PV guests.
> */
> #define INVALID_PERCPU_AREA (0x8000L - (long)__per_cpu_start)
> -#define PERCPU_ORDER get_orde
Use DECLARE_BOUNDS and the two static inline functions that come with it
for comparisons and subtractions of:
__2M_rwdata_start, __2M_rwdata_end, __end_vpci_array,
__start_vpci_array, _stextentry, _etextentry, __trampoline_rel_start,
__trampoline_rel_stop, __trampoline_seg_start, __trampoline_seg_
19 matches
Mail list logo
