On 26.04.2024 00:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 17/04/2024 19:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> Hi Michal,
>>>>
>>>> On 17/04/2024 13:14, Michal Orzel wrote:
>>>>> Commit afab29d0882f ("public: s/int/int32_t") replaced int with int32_t
>>>>> in XEN_GUEST_HANDLE() in memory.h but there is no guest handle defined
>>>>> for it. This results in a build failure. Example on Arm:
>>>>>
>>>>> ./include/public/arch-arm.h:205:41: error: unknown type name
>>>>> ‘__guest_handle_64_int32_t’
>>>>> 205 | #define __XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(name) __guest_handle_64_ ##
>>>>> name
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> ./include/public/arch-arm.h:206:41: note: in expansion of macro
>>>>> ‘__XEN_GUEST_HANDLE’
>>>>> 206 | #define XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(name)
>>>>> __XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(name)
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> ./include/public/memory.h:277:5: note: in expansion of macro
>>>>> ‘XEN_GUEST_HANDLE’
>>>>> 277 | XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(int32_t) errs;
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix it. Also, drop guest handle definition for int given no further use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: afab29d0882f ("public: s/int/int32_t")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So it turned out that I committed v1 from Stefano. I was meant to commit
>>>> the
>>>> patch at all, but I think I started with a dirty staging :(. Sorry for
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I have reverted Stefano's commit for now so we can take the correct patch.
>>>>
>>>> Now, from my understanding, Andrew suggested on Matrix that this solution
>>>> may
>>>> actually be a good way to handle GUEST_HANLDEs (they were removed in v2).
>>>> Maybe this can be folded in Stefano's patch?
>>>
>>> v1 together with Michal's fix is correct. Also v2 alone is correct, or
>>> v2 with Michal's fix is also correct.
>>
>> I am slightly confused, v2 + Michal's fix means that XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(int) is
>> removed and we introduce XEN_GUEST_INT(int32_t) with no user. So wouldn't
>> this
>
> You are right I apologize. I looked at Michal's patch too quickly and
> I thought it was just adding XEN_GUEST_INT(int32_t) without removing
> anything.
>
> In that case, if you are OK with it, please ack and commit v2 only.
Just to mention it: Committing would apparently be premature, as I can't spot
any response to comments I gave to the patch. I'm okay with those being
addressed verbally only, but imo they cannot be dropped on the floor.
Jan
