On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:11:25PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> The prototype for the halt() function is incorrect, because halt() doesn't
> take any arguments. Fix it by using the prototype from smp.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/arm/io.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/arm/io.c b/lib/arm/io.c
> index 8226b765bdc5..6d3d7afed002 100644
> --- a/lib/arm/io.c
> +++ b/lib/arm/io.c
> @@ -15,11 +15,10 @@
> #include <asm/psci.h>
> #include <asm/spinlock.h>
> #include <asm/io.h>
> +#include <asm/smp.h>
>
> #include "io.h"
>
> -extern void halt(int code);
> -
> static struct spinlock uart_lock;
> /*
> * Use this guess for the uart base in order to make an attempt at
> @@ -93,6 +92,6 @@ void exit(int code)
> {
> chr_testdev_exit(code);
> psci_system_off();
> - halt(code);
> + halt();
> __builtin_unreachable();
> }
> --
> 2.17.0
>
I don't mind this change, because per the code it is the "correct"
thing to do. However, I was being a bit tricky here when I wrote it.
By changing the prototype to take 'code' as argument we guarantee
that 'code' will be in x0/r0 when we halt, giving us a last chance
to see it when inspecting the halted unit test state.
Anyway, like I said, I'm fine with the cleanup, but the prototype
abuse does serve a purpose - maybe just not a good enough purpose
to justify the weirdness.
Thanks,
drew
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
