On 15.07.2020 10:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 08:36:10AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.07.2020 16:29, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:27:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/common/compat/memory.c >>>> +++ b/xen/common/compat/memory.c >>>> @@ -354,10 +354,13 @@ int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, X >>>> return -EFAULT; >>>> >>>> #define XLAT_vnuma_topology_info_HNDL_vdistance_h(_d_, _s_) >>>> \ >>>> + case XLAT_vnuma_topology_info_vdistance_pad: \ >>>> guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->vdistance.h, >>>> (_s_)->vdistance.h) >>>> #define XLAT_vnuma_topology_info_HNDL_vcpu_to_vnode_h(_d_, _s_) >>>> \ >>>> + case XLAT_vnuma_topology_info_vcpu_to_vnode_pad: \ >>>> guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->vcpu_to_vnode.h, >>>> (_s_)->vcpu_to_vnode.h) >>>> #define XLAT_vnuma_topology_info_HNDL_vmemrange_h(_d_, _s_) >>>> \ >>>> + case XLAT_vnuma_topology_info_vmemrange_pad: \ >>>> guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->vmemrange.h, >>>> (_s_)->vmemrange.h) >>> >>> I find this quite ugly, would it be better to just handle them with a >>> default case in the XLAT_ macros? >> >> Default cases explicitly do not get added to be able to spot missing >> case labels, as most compilers will warn about such when the controlling >> expression is of enum type. > > As you say on the comment above, ignoring those for translation > macros would be better, and would avoid the ugliness of having to add > the _pad cases here.
Ah, yes, if the supposed adjustment would also suppress the generation of respective enumerators. Jan
