On 29/08/2024 1:01 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > ... and move the type itself to linux-compat.h. > > While doing so switch a few adjacent types as well, for (a little bit > of) consistency. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>, with a minor formatting request. > --- a/xen/arch/arm/arm32/livepatch.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/arm32/livepatch.c > @@ -41,11 +41,11 @@ void arch_livepatch_apply(const struct l > * ARM DDI 0406C.c, see A2.3 (pg 45) and A8.8.18 pg (pg 334,335) > * > */ > - delta = (s32)func->new_addr - (s32)(func->old_addr + 8); > + delta = (int32_t)func->new_addr - (int32_t)(func->old_addr + 8); > > /* The arch_livepatch_symbol_ok should have caught it. */ > - ASSERT(delta >= -(s32)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE || > - delta < (s32)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE); > + ASSERT(delta >= -(int32_t)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE || > + delta < (int32_t)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE); Could you vertically like this, like it is ... > @@ -203,8 +204,8 @@ static int perform_rel(unsigned char typ > * arch_livepatch_verify_distance can't account of addend so we have > * to do the check here as well. > */ > - if ( (s32)val < -(s32)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE || > - (s32)val >= (s32)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE ) > + if ( (int32_t)val < -(int32_t)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE || > + (int32_t)val >= (int32_t)ARCH_LIVEPATCH_RANGE ) > return -EOVERFLOW; ... here? I'd argue that even this one wants one extra space in the middle, so the '-' is further to the right of the >=. ~Andrew
