From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 1/6] xen: Emulate with no writes Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:37:29 +0300 Message-ID: <53C396C9.80404@bitdefender.com> References: <1405093418-23481-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> <53C00F94.5020907@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53C00F94.5020907@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: mdontu@bitdefender.com, tim@xen.org, JBeulich@suse.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/11/2014 07:23 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 11/07/14 16:43, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >> +void hvm_emulate_one_full(bool_t nowrite, >> + unsigned int unhandleable_trapnr, >> + int unhandleable_errcode) >> +{ >> + struct hvm_emulate_ctxt ctx[1] = {}; > > This construct looks suspect. What is wrong with > > struct hvm_emulate_ctxt ctx = { 0 }; and using &ctx below ? Modifying the code to address your comments, that code was written to get around a GCC issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 It's either that or writing struct hvm_emulate_ctxt ctx = {{ 0 }}; I've changed it to the latter. Thanks, Razvan Cojocaru