On 17/05/2022 07:47, Michal Orzel wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Michal,
On 16.05.2022 19:02, Julien Grall wrote:
+static int cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action,
+ void *hcpu)
+{
+ unsigned long cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
As cpu does not change in this function, shouldn't we mark it as const?
As discussed in [1], this is not a common practice to use const for
variable that just hold integer.
I would personally only used it if I think there is a security issue
risk (e.g. the variable is used to flush the TLB like in [2]).
Would you be able to explain why you want to use const? Is it a
requirement for some certification?
+ int rc = 0;
+
+ switch ( action )
+ {
+ case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
+ rc = gicv3_lpi_allocate_pendtable(cpu);
+ if ( rc )
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR "Unable to allocate the pendtable for CPU%u\n",
%u requires unsigned int but cpu is unsigned long.
FWICS this will cause a compilation error, so you should change to %lu.
Whoops. I will fix it on the next version.
+ cpu);
+ break;
}
- return gicv3_lpi_set_proptable(rdist_base);
+ return !rc ? NOTIFY_DONE : notifier_from_errno(rc);
}
Cheers,
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/
Cheers,
Michal
--
Julien Grall
