On 25.06.2024 12:14, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote: > In the file common/softirq macro set_bit is called with argument > smp_processor_id. > Once expanded this set_bit's argument is used in sizeof operations > and thus 'smp_processor_id', being a macro that expands to a > function call with potential side effects, generates a violation.
Noticing only now, but applicable also to patch 2: "expands" isn't quite right, is it? That's true for x86, but apparently not for Arm. Unless I managed to overlook something there. So perhaps "may expand" instead? > --- a/xen/common/softirq.c > +++ b/xen/common/softirq.c > @@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ void cpu_raise_softirq_batch_finish(void) > > void raise_softirq(unsigned int nr) > { > - set_bit(nr, &softirq_pending(smp_processor_id())); > + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > + set_bit(nr, &softirq_pending(cpu)); > } Nit (style): Blank line between declaration(s) and statement(s) please. I guess both aspects could be taken care of while committing. Jan