On 07/05/18 15:55, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Mirela,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
On 27/04/18 18:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
printk("P2M: %d levels with order-%d root, VTCR 0x%lx\n",
- 4 - P2M_ROOT_LEVEL, P2M_ROOT_ORDER, val);
+ 4 - P2M_ROOT_LEVEL, P2M_ROOT_ORDER, vtcr);
p2m_vmid_allocator_init();
/* It is not allowed to concatenate a level zero root */
BUG_ON( P2M_ROOT_LEVEL == 0 && P2M_ROOT_ORDER > 0 );
- setup_virt_paging_one((void *)val);
- smp_call_function(setup_virt_paging_one, (void *)val, 1);
+ setup_virt_paging_one(NULL);
+ smp_call_function(setup_virt_paging_one, NULL, 1);
+}
+
+static int cpu_virt_paging_callback(
+ struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
The indentation looks wrong.
Editor indented this for me and it looks the same as in other places
where a notifier is defined. I did
grep -r "struct notifier_block \*nfb,"
to check. It looks weird but seems correct
Indeed, I am not sure why it is done like that for notifiers. I can't
see any reason to split like that given the first parameter can fit on
the first line without hitting the 80 columns.
So I would much prefer if we follow Xen coding style:
static int cpu_virt_paging_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
unsigned long action,
void *hcpu);
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
