From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.6] xen/public: arm: Use __typeof__ rather than typeof Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:03:48 +0100 Message-ID: <1445609028.2374.188.camel@citrix.com> References: <1443986642-24392-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com> <562A3295.6010901@citrix.com> <1445607059.2374.165.camel@citrix.com> <562A57D902000078000AE2A2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Zpcwv-0008Gq-6E for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:04:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: <562A57D902000078000AE2A2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Julien Grall Cc: Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan , Keir Fraser , Wei.Liu2@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 07:52 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 23.10.15 at 15:30, wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 14:13 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 04/10/15 20:24, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > The keyword typeof is not portable: > > > > > > > > /usr/src/freebsd/sys/xen/hypervisor.h:93:2: error: implicit > > > > declaration > > > > of function 'typeof' is invalid in C99 > > > > [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > > > > > Ping? Aside the fact that other bits of the header may not be iso > > > compliant, I still think this patch is valid. > > > > Yes, I agree. > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell > > > > Jan, after your earlier comments are you happy to go ahead with this > > for > > now and sort the other possible issues separately? > > Well - it's an improvement, sure, so I'm not intending to block it > going in if no better way can be determined in its place right away. > What makes me hesitant is that I'm not sure there indeed will be a > follow up to this any time soon. Are you saying with "better way" that Julien's fix is incorrect and that there is potentially a "proper" fix for this specific case? i.e. a followup to fix the use of __typeof__ in set_xen_guest_handle_raw which this patch introduces is expected? I don't think you are, in which case are you suggesting that having fixed this one issue that Julien should then be on the hook for fixing all similar/related issues in these header? I don't think it is right to mandate that Julien put this followup work onto his TODO list as a condition of accepting this patch, if this is not a case of Julien's change being incorrect and requiring a "proper" fix, but that there are other similar things wrong elsewhere. Of course if he or anyone else wants to do so voluntarily then that's great. Ian.