On 09.04.2025 08:45, Jiqian Chen wrote: > --- a/xen/drivers/pci/pci.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/pci/pci.c > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ unsigned int pci_find_cap_offset(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, unsigned > int cap) > } > > unsigned int pci_find_next_cap_ttl(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, unsigned int pos, > - const unsigned int caps[], unsigned int n, > + const unsigned int *caps, unsigned int n,
I don't follow the need for this change. > @@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ unsigned int pci_find_next_cap_ttl(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, > unsigned int pos, > > if ( id == 0xff ) > break; > + > + if ( !caps || n == 0 ) > + return pos; Checking n to be zero ought to suffice here? In that case it doesn't matter what caps is. Plus if n is non-zero, it clearly is an error if caps was NULL. Jan
