On 27/01/2020 15:45, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 27.01.20 15:22, Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27/01/2020 14:39, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 27.01.20 13:15, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 27.01.20 12:40, Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/01/2020 07:37, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better pad than rely on both sides using the same compiler logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ack. But shouldn't we then, in turn, use __attribute__((unpacked)) to
>>>>> avoid that the compiler accidentally does some other unintended
>>>>> alignment / reordering?
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean "packed"? It shouldn't be needed at this stage, but it
>>>> shouldn't harm as well.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> include/arch/arm-common/asm/jailhouse_hypercall.h | 1 +
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/arch/arm-common/asm/jailhouse_hypercall.h
>>>>>> b/include/arch/arm-common/asm/jailhouse_hypercall.h
>>>>>> index 83cec97b..aeab2816 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/arch/arm-common/asm/jailhouse_hypercall.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/arch/arm-common/asm/jailhouse_hypercall.h
>>>>>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define COMM_REGION_COMMON_PLATFORM_INFO \
>>>>>> __u8 gic_version; \
>>>>>> + __u8 padding[7]; \
>>>>>> __u64 gicd_base; \
>>>>>> __u64 gicc_base; \
>>>>>> __u64 gicr_base; \
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: It's really hard to trace how the structures are being defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of creating the structure in arch-specific parts for each
>>>>> architecture, I think it would be nicer to introduce the structure for
>>>>> all architectures, and then include arch-specific parts.
>>>>
>>>> ...as anonymous sub-structs - possibly.
>>>
>>> Not that easy: The anonymous struct thing does not work, and the doxygen
>>> documentation would have to be refactored as well.
>>
>> Ack, just realised that as well.
>>
>> Have a look at the attachment. If you agree on this idea, I'll make a
>> proper patch out of it.
>
> Not truly convinced as this pulls arch-specific stuff into the generic
> header while we have asm headers in the loop. To avoid that, either use
> non-anonymous arch structs or defines again (I was considering the latter).
I already tried the latter one, and looks like that's not possible: We
need to have the structure in place before we include arch-specific
headers, as the routines in the header already make use of them. Forward
declaration isn't sufficient.
I'd go for the non-anonymous arch structs then, but still leave them in
the generic header.
Ralf
>
> And doxygen is missing the struct at the right place now.
>
> Jan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Jailhouse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jailhouse-dev/cb50b8e5-94d4-21f7-a920-398ea8efaf6d%40oth-regensburg.de.
