On 29.08.2024 14:44, Andrew Cooper wrote: > 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>,
Thanks. > 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? If the Arm folks don't mind - sure, I can. I think though that the latter only happens to look aligned, without there having been such an intention. Kind of supported ... > I'd argue that even this one wants one extra space in the middle, so the > '-' is further to the right of the >=. ... by this observation of yours. Jan
