[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b545c1e-dd86-4ca7-b3fd-6f6ff87bddb3@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:25:16 -0800
From: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>,
nunodasneves@...ux.microsoft.com
Cc: hpa@...or.com, kys@...rosoft.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, decui@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
mingo@...hat.com, mhklinux@...look.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
tiala@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, apais@...rosoft.com,
benhill@...rosoft.com, ssengar@...rosoft.com, sunilmut@...rosoft.com,
vdso@...bites.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] hyperv: Define struct hv_output_get_vp_registers
On 12/26/2024 2:11 PM, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
> On 12/26/2024 1:31 PM, Roman Kisel wrote:
[...]
>> +#else
>> + #error "This architecture is not supported"
>> +#endif
>> +};
>
> I don't love the #error for unsupported architectures when Kconfig takes
> care of that for us, but I suppose it's for completeness since the arm64
> members have to be conditioned on CONFIG_ARM64?
>
Felt right to do that, but because it raises questions, it should carry
a comment or be removed as, if you pointed out, Kconfig is in charge of
that kind of validation. As Kconfig permits Hyper-V on the correct set
of arch'es, the best choice would be to remove I think.
>> +
>> +/* NOTE: Linux helper struct - NOT from Hyper-V code */
>> +struct hv_output_get_vp_registers {
>> + DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(union hv_register_value, values);
>> };
>
> I'm not super familiar with DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() but it appears this
> needs to be wrapped in an anonymous struct at the least per this comment
> for the definition of DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY()
>
>> * In order to have a flexible array member [...] alone in a
>> * struct, it needs to be wrapped in an anonymous struct with at least 1
>> * named member, but that member can be empty.
>
> Nuno, since you seem to be more familiar, can you provide some guidance?
I will wrap the struct member of the documentation requires, not to
make the code look suspicious.
>
> Thanks,
> Easwar
--
Thank you,
Roman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists