On 2025-12-11 09:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.12.2025 19:30, Andrew Cooper wrote:
With the wider testing, some more violations have been spotted. This
addresses violations of Rule 20.7 which requires macro parameters to
be
bracketed.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>
---
CC: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
CC: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>
CC: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]>
---
xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c | 2 +-
xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/private.h | 6 +++---
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 2 +-
xen/include/xen/kexec.h | 4 ++--
4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
index 03be61e225c0..36ee6554b4c4 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ do {
\
(_sl1e) = _sp + _i;
\
if ( shadow_l1e_get_flags(*(_sl1e)) & _PAGE_PRESENT )
\
{_code}
\
- if ( _done ) break;
\
+ if ( (_done) ) break;
\
I don't understand this: There are parentheses already from if()
itself.
Yeah, syntactically there are, but those are parsed as part of the if,
rather than its condition; the AST node contained within does not have
parentheses around it.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/private.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/private.h
@@ -636,9 +636,9 @@ prev_pinned_shadow(struct page_info *page,
}
#define foreach_pinned_shadow(dom, pos, tmp) \
- for ( pos = prev_pinned_shadow(NULL, (dom)); \
- pos ? (tmp = prev_pinned_shadow(pos, (dom)), 1) : 0; \
- pos = tmp )
+ for ( (pos) = prev_pinned_shadow(NULL, dom); \
+ (pos) ? (tmp = prev_pinned_shadow(pos, dom), 1) : 0; \
+ (pos) = tmp )
What about tmp (twice)?
Jan
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
