From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Xu Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:37:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot array based on number of used slots Message-Id: <20200207163740.GA720553@xz-x1> List-Id: References: <20200121223157.15263-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20200121223157.15263-19-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20200206221208.GI700495@xz-x1> <20200207153829.GA2401@linux.intel.com> <20200207160546.GA707371@xz-x1> <20200207161553.GE2401@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20200207161553.GE2401@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Paul Mackerras , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , David Hildenbrand , Cornelia Huck , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , Marc Zyngier , James Morse , Julien Thierry , Suzuki K Poulose , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoffer Dall , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 08:15:53AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:05:46AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 07:38:29AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:12:08PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > This patch is tested so I believe this works, however normally I need > > > > to do similar thing with [0] otherwise gcc might complaint. Is there > > > > any trick behind to make this work? Or is that because of different > > > > gcc versions? > > > > > > array[] and array[0] have the same net affect, but array[] is given special > > > treatment by gcc to provide extra sanity checks, e.g. requires the field to > > > be the end of the struct. Last I checked, gcc also doesn't allow array[] > > > in unions. There are probably other restrictions. > > > > > > But, it's precisely because of those restrictions that using array[] is > > > preferred, as it provides extra protections, e.g. if someone moved memslots > > > to the top of the struct it would fail to compile. > > > > However... > > > > xz-x1:tmp $ cat a.c > > struct a { > > int s[]; > > }; > > > > int main(void) { } > > xz-x1:tmp $ make a > > cc a.c -o a > > a.c:2:9: error: flexible array member in a struct with no named members > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > gcc is telling you quite explicitly why it's angry. Copy+paste from the > internet[*]: > > Flexible Array Member(FAM) is a feature introduced in the C99 standard of the > C programming language. > > For the structures in C programming language from C99 standard onwards, we > can declare an array without a dimension and whose size is flexible in nature. > > Such an array inside the structure should preferably be declared as the last > member of structure and its size is variable(can be changed be at runtime). > > The structure must contain at least one more named member in addition to the > flexible array member. > > [*] https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/flexible-array-members-structure-c/ Sorry again for not being able to identify the meaning of that sentence myself. My English is probably even worse than I thought... So I think my r-b keeps. Thanks, -- Peter Xu