On 28/11/2023 1:00 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 28.11.2023 10:46, Federico Serafini wrote: >> Uniform declaration and definition of guest_walk_tables() using >> parameter name "pfec_walk": >> this name highlights the connection with PFEC_* constants and it is >> consistent with the use of the parameter within function body. >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.seraf...@bugseng.com> > I'm curious what other x86 maintainers think. I for one don't like this, > but not enough to object if others are happy. That said, there was earlier > discussion (and perhaps even a patch), yet without a reference I don't > think I can locate this among all the Misra bits and pieces.
I looked at this and wanted a bit of time to think. Sadly, this code is half way through some cleanup, which started before speculation and will continue in my copious free time. It's wrong to be passing PFEC_* constants, and that's why I renamed pfec -> walk the last time I was fixing security bugs here (indeed, passing the wrong constant here *was* the security issue). I missed the prototype while fixing the implementation. At some point, PFEC_* will no longer be passed in. Therefore I'd far rather this was a one-line change for the declaration changing pfec -> walk. As it stands, you're effectively reverting a correction I made. Thanks, ~Andrew
