>>> On 10.10.17 at 23:00, <ppircal...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 06:28 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > > +typedef struct xen_hvm_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi >> > + xen_hvm_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi_t; >> > +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_hvm_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi_t); >> >> Are typedef and handle actually needed anywhere? Otherwise >> please don't add them. Just like recently done for domctl and >> sysctl we should even consider cleaning up the others here. >> > All xen_hvm_altp2m_* structs have also defined the typedef and the > handle. I can remove them for xen_hvm_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi but > this way it will not be in sync with the other xen_hvm_altp2m_* > definitions.
Please, as frequently asked for elsewhere elsewhere, let's not spread badness once it was recognized. > Also, regarding the typedef, I have encountered a possible usage when > trying to generate the XLAT macro for xen_hvm_altp2m_op. Using the > existing way of declaring the structure (union of structs) the enum > corresponding to the union members was not generated. Replacing struct > with the corresponding typedef fixed the issue. Now that's a valid argument, if that way less customization is necessary elsewhere in your patch. But that still wouldn't require the handle to be declared. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
