On 7/11/25 15:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.07.2025 13:43, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/memory.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
>> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ static long
>> memory_exchange(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_memory_exchange_t) arg)
>>
>> nrspin_lock(&d->page_alloc_lock);
>> drop_dom_ref = (dec_count &&
>> - !domain_adjust_tot_pages(d, -dec_count));
>> + !domain_adjust_tot_pages(d,
>> -(long)dec_count));
>
> Here and elsewhere I continue to think that we would better avoid casts
> in such cases as well, just like we try to minimize their use everywhere
> else.
Got it!
>
>> --- a/xen/common/time.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/time.c
>> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ struct tm gmtime(unsigned long t)
>> }
>> tbuf.tm_year = y - 1900;
>> tbuf.tm_yday = days;
>> - ip = (const unsigned short int *)__mon_lengths[__isleap(y)];
>> + ip = (const unsigned short int *)__mon_lengths[__isleap(y) ? 1 : 0];
>
> If an expression is needed here, I'd suggest to use !!, as we have in
> (luckily decreasing) number of places elsewhere. Personally I don't
> understand though why a boolean cannot be used as an array index.
>
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int queue_poll_cons(struct arm_smmu_queue *q,
>> bool sync, bool wfe)
>>
>> while (queue_sync_cons_in(q),
>> (sync ? !queue_empty(&q->llq) : queue_full(&q->llq))) {
>> - if ((NOW() > timeout) > 0)
>> + if (NOW() > timeout)
>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>
> How does this change fit here?
>
> Jan
if ((NOW() > timeout) > 0)
Result of "(NOW() > timeout)" is Boolean, so we have comparison Boolean
with Numeric value.
