On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 03:53 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > For one the uses of domu_max_order and ptdom_max_order were swapped.
> And then gcc warns about an unused result of a __must_check function > in the control part of a conditional expression when both other > expressions can be determined by the compiler to produce the same value > (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68039), which happens > when HAS_PASSTHROUGH is undefined (i.e. for ARM on 4.4 and older). Should we issue an updated 158 for all this? > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> > > --- a/xen/common/memory.c > +++ b/xen/common/memory.c > @@ -55,8 +55,6 @@ static unsigned int __read_mostly ctldom > static unsigned int __read_mostly hwdom_max_order = CONFIG_HWDOM_MAX_ORDER; > #ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH > static unsigned int __read_mostly ptdom_max_order = CONFIG_PTDOM_MAX_ORDER; > -#else > -# define ptdom_max_order domu_max_order > #endif > static void __init parse_max_order(const char *s) > { > @@ -75,8 +73,12 @@ custom_param("memop-max-order", parse_ma > > static unsigned int max_order(const struct domain *d) > { > - unsigned int order = cache_flush_permitted(d) ? domu_max_order > - : ptdom_max_order; > + unsigned int order = domu_max_order; > + > +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH > + if ( cache_flush_permitted(d) && order < ptdom_max_order ) > + order = ptdom_max_order; > +#endif > > if ( is_control_domain(d) && order < ctldom_max_order ) > order = ctldom_max_order; > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
