On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:25:48PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 84e364f2eda2 ("x86: add CMCI software injection interface") merely made
> sure things would build, without any concern about things actually
> working:
> - despite the addition of xenctl_bitmap to xlat.lst, the resulting macro
> wasn't invoked anywhere (which would have lead to recognizing that the
> structure appeared to have no fully compatible layout, despite the use
> of a 64-bit handle),
> - the interface struct itself was neither added to xlat.lst (and the
> resulting macro then invoked) nor was any manual checking of
> individual fields added.
>
> Adjust compat header generation logic to retain XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(),
> which is intentionally layed out to be compatible between different size
> guests. Invoke the missing checking (implicitly through CHECK_mc).
>
> No change in the resulting generated code.
>
> Fixes: 84e364f2eda2 ("x86: add CMCI software injection interface")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
LGTM, just one question below.
> --- a/xen/tools/compat-build-header.py
> +++ b/xen/tools/compat-build-header.py
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ pats = [
> [ r"(^|[^\w])xen_?(\w*)_compat_t([^\w]|$$)", r"\1compat_\2_t\3" ],
> [ r"(^|[^\w])XEN_?", r"\1COMPAT_" ],
> [ r"(^|[^\w])Xen_?", r"\1Compat_" ],
> + [ r"(^|[^\w])COMPAT_HANDLE_64\(", r"\1XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(" ],
Why do you need to match with the opening parenthesis?
Is this for the #ifndef XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64 instances? Don't they need
to also be replaced with the compat types?
Thanks, Roger.
