On 2024-02-29 17:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 16:27, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
@@ -179,9 +179,9 @@ void cleanup_domain_irq_mapping(struct domain *d);
void *__ret = radix_tree_lookup(&(d)->arch.hvm.emuirq_pirq,
emuirq);\
__ret ? radix_tree_ptr_to_int(__ret) : IRQ_UNBOUND;
\
})
-#define IRQ_UNBOUND -1
-#define IRQ_PT -2
-#define IRQ_MSI_EMU -3
+#define IRQ_UNBOUND (-1)
+#define IRQ_PT (-2)
+#define IRQ_MSI_EMU (-3)
bool cpu_has_pending_apic_eoi(void);
I'd be happy to ack this change right away.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/usercopy.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/usercopy.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ unsigned int copy_from_guest_ll(void *to, const
void __user *from, unsigned int
return n;
}
-#if GUARD(1) + 0
+#if GUARD((1)) + 0
I don't even understand the need for this one, and nothing is said in
the description in that regard. Generally I'm afraid I'm averse to
such (seemingly) redundant parentheses in macro invocations.
It's because
#define UA_KEEP(args...) args
#define GUARD UA_KEEP
which would expand to #if 1 + 0, while the rule demands #if (1) + 0
I did note in the message after --- that I didn't wanna touch UA_KEEP so
I did this instead, which I'm not particularly happy about either. I can
remove this and deviate, there is no other issue with GUARD.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
