On 09.08.2023 22:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 09.08.2023 16:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 09/08/2023 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> The additional header file makes the declaration for the function >>>>> 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the >>>>> violation of Rule 8.4. >>>>> >>>>> No functional change. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>>>> index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >>>>> #include <xen/delay.h> >>>>> #include <asm/apic.h> >>>>> #include <asm/asm_defns.h> >>>>> +#include <asm/setup.h> >>>>> #include <io_ports.h> >>>>> #include <irq_vectors.h> >>>> >>>> A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months: >>>> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html >>> >>> So do you prefer going forward with that patch or this one (mentioning >>> it >>> in the additional commit context of course)? >> >> I would prefer using the much older patch, but of course this requires >> someone providing R-b or A-b. > > Hi Jan, normally I'd be happy to do that but that patch makes other > changes that I don't feel confident enough to Ack.
I understand that in general, but for this specific case ... > For instance: > > + for ( offs = 0, i = pic_alias_mask & -pic_alias_mask ?: 2; > + offs <= pic_alias_mask; offs += i ) > > pic_alias_mask is declared as unsigned int. ... you're concerned of me negating it? That's a common pattern to determine the largest power-of-2 factor. I'm unaware of a good alternative. Jan
