On 14/12/23 09:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.2023 12:44, Federico Serafini wrote:I have another question regarding Rule 5.6 ("A `typedef' name shall be a unique identifier"), this time for X86: the violations left [1] involve guest_intpte_t, guest_l1e_t and guest_l2e_t, which seem to be deliberately defined differently depending on the number of guest paging levels. I would like to propose a deviation for these types, do you agree?Yes. In fact I think we said so already when discussing this rule. The whole rebuild-same-file-for-multiple-purposes can hardly work without something along the lines of multiple ways of defining the same macros and/or typedefs for each of the instances.
Thanks for the feedback. -- Federico Serafini, M.Sc. Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
