On 12.10.2023 17:28, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > The definition of IO_APIC_BASE contains a sum of an essentially enum > value (FIX_IO_APIC_BASE_0) that is positive with an index that, in all > instances, is unsigned, therefore the former is cast to unsigned, so that > the operands are of the same essential type. > > No functional change. > --- > xen/arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h > b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h > index a7e4c9e146de..a0fc50d601fe 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h > @@ -14,9 +14,10 @@ > * Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 Ingo Molnar > */ > > -#define IO_APIC_BASE(idx) \ > - ((volatile uint32_t *)(__fix_to_virt(FIX_IO_APIC_BASE_0 + (idx)) \ > - + (mp_ioapics[idx].mpc_apicaddr & ~PAGE_MASK))) > +#define IO_APIC_BASE(idx) \ > + ((volatile uint32_t *) \ > + (__fix_to_virt((unsigned int)FIX_IO_APIC_BASE_0 + (idx)) \ > + + (mp_ioapics[idx].mpc_apicaddr & ~PAGE_MASK)))
Let's assume that down the road we want to make __fix_to_virt() an inline function (which perhaps it really ought to be already): Won't this trade one violation for another then? I wonder whether the better course of action wouldn't be to switch the two enums to be "anonymous", even if that means adjusting __set_fixmap() and __set_fixmap_x(). As an aside, since you touch the entire construct, it would be nice if the + was also moved to the end of the earlier line. Jan
