Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib: arm: Use correct halt() prototype from smp.h

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:15:59AM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> On 4/9/19 8:40 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Now it makes sense. I didn't think it was intentional, but now that you have
> mentioned it, the same pattern is used by powerpc.

No surprise there. I wrote that too, based on the arm code :)

> 
> Perhaps a comment explaining that having different prototypes was on purpose
> would be the best solution?

Yes, either a comment explaining the weirdness or your patch to
remove it would be a good idea in order to avoid future head
scratching. I'll send a patch that adds comments to both arm and
powerpc.

Thanks,
drew



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux