> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 25 November 2016 07:06
> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Wei Liu
> <wei.l...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; xen-
> de...@lists.xenproject.org; Daniel De Graaf <dgde...@tycho.nsa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH-for-4.9 v1 2/8] dm_op: convert
> HVMOP_*ioreq_server*
>
> >>> On 24.11.16 at 18:02, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 18.11.16 at 18:13, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> + {
> >> + struct xen_dm_op_get_ioreq_server_info *data =
> >> + &op.u.get_ioreq_server_info;
> >> +
> >> + rc = hvm_get_ioreq_server_info(d, data->id,
> >> + &data->ioreq_pfn,
> >> + &data->bufioreq_pfn,
> >> + &data->bufioreq_port);
> >
> > Before the call you should check the __pad field to be zero
> > (presumably also elsewhere).
>
> And please no double underscores at the beginning of those field
> names; preferably none at all (as field names may collide with file
> scope object-like macros).
Ok.
>
> >> struct xen_dm_op {
> >> uint32_t op;
> >> + union {
> >
> > Even if no current structure needs it, I think we should have a 32-bit
> > padding field ahead of the union right away, to cover (current or
> > future) uint64_aligned_t uses inside the union members.
>
> Actually I did overlook that the few instances of uint64_aligned_t
> are in direct union members, not in fields referenced, so this isn't just
> a "should" really.
>
Ok, I'll go through and check field alignments again.
Paul
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
