Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
On 14.07.2020 16:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:47:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.07.2020 13:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:26:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: Use a typedef in struct xen_mc also for the two subops "manually" translated in the handler, just for consistency. No functional change. >>> >>> I'm slightly puzzled by the fact that mc_fetch is marked as needs >>> checking while mc_physcpuinfo is marked as needs translation, >>> shouldn't both be marked as needing translation? (since both need to >>> handle a guest pointer using XEN_GUEST_HANDLE) >> >> I guess I'm confused - I see an exclamation mark on both respective > > No, I was the one confused, you are right that both are marked as need > translation. And just to mention it explicitly - I think the lines could be dropped, as they look to be there just for documentation (if at all). The resulting XLAT_* macros don't get used anywhere. Jan
Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:26:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > Use a typedef in struct xen_mc also for the two subops "manually" > translated in the handler, just for consistency. No functional > change. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné Thanks.
Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:47:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 14.07.2020 13:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:26:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Use a typedef in struct xen_mc also for the two subops "manually" > >> translated in the handler, just for consistency. No functional > >> change. > > > > I'm slightly puzzled by the fact that mc_fetch is marked as needs > > checking while mc_physcpuinfo is marked as needs translation, > > shouldn't both be marked as needing translation? (since both need to > > handle a guest pointer using XEN_GUEST_HANDLE) > > I guess I'm confused - I see an exclamation mark on both respective No, I was the one confused, you are right that both are marked as need translation. Roger.
Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
On 14.07.2020 13:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:26:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Use a typedef in struct xen_mc also for the two subops "manually" >> translated in the handler, just for consistency. No functional >> change. > > I'm slightly puzzled by the fact that mc_fetch is marked as needs > checking while mc_physcpuinfo is marked as needs translation, > shouldn't both be marked as needing translation? (since both need to > handle a guest pointer using XEN_GUEST_HANDLE) I guess I'm confused - I see an exclamation mark on both respective lines in xlat.lst. Jan
Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:26:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > Use a typedef in struct xen_mc also for the two subops "manually" > translated in the handler, just for consistency. No functional > change. I'm slightly puzzled by the fact that mc_fetch is marked as needs checking while mc_physcpuinfo is marked as needs translation, shouldn't both be marked as needing translation? (since both need to handle a guest pointer using XEN_GUEST_HANDLE) Thanks, Roger.
