>>> On 23.06.15 at 13:06, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > On June 23, 2015 3:21:17 AM EDT, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>> On 22.06.15 at 21:31, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> @@ -1804,8 +1804,12 @@ static bool_t pci_cfg_ok(struct domain * >>>> start |= CF8_ADDR_HI(currd->arch.pci_cf8); >>>> } >>>> >>>> - return !xsm_pci_config_permission(XSM_HOOK, currd, machine_bdf, >>>> - start, start + size - 1, >>write); >>>> + if ( xsm_pci_config_permission(XSM_HOOK, currd, machine_bdf, >>>> + start, start + size - 1, >>!!write) != 0 ) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + >>>> + return !write || >>>> + pci_conf_write_intercept(0, machine_bdf, start, size, >>write) >= 0; >>> >>> Won't the 'write' parameter cause an compiler error as it expects an >>> pointer? >> >>No, certainly not - !write means the same as write != NULL, but is >>(imo) easier to read. > > I meant the > > pci_conf_write_intercept(...,write). > > The prototype for the last parameter is for *uint32?
But the write parameter is being changed to this very type in this patch. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel