From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 554B986341; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786552041; cv=none; b=EAW8a1aRIasUYckS73xn6q2P8XxvfA23qA3o/wylvHReIMXxsCJye7PcZIdbNwEw5sU7nfeWFiinVKqPXOdlA2qwnVr/R1qNVsLaXDvdtV57tkUY1an8RabtGkTYuj70Mc9Tn2HhmGEgV22nNfAf9DXugHgBXblSchHnnWKfJY8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786552041; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vQpSLFklztsXIzACp5l/NzVQqqC9Bg+xcL9sxMCY6Is=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=H0/ItUlli0cz1qBu7+86GALLeEGvenwfE3SgslQoNjIXHO0YIbXxcbizvPBGY46AJqbCyfIS1yAK/8+EBkjvxJj4oHZibVq8qkk6PjWSEv7HfQCjl1ltQvc0J3Q4G+lxTNNarPHLGUKywEzCyHAWSDb+SGnk7lH2kNTVdyNY68s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=iF8WuTez; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="iF8WuTez" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DE931F000E9; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:27:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786552039; bh=RwM0+WViKuyQRQrItx1lD1tXwYTMLhAi72lTSuNoH2c=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=iF8WuTezE9v2D7LHBypTUUInpr3zTNskyVpLHv7moBBiYQ09dd7y6t9q7UsOvYbjk m5AODAVmAHFICcH+rA2gx9z5qwLZv8dNU6Qm6HuEHyeb0oHLcQZbQRU9zc7jKxVIPj CJ0n3Sh0iQjAoNkz8I2VKIzDRoVE+DVxStJiaRP7Adap73CvW0pa1t637E1+gimhEt Z4MojapFCi60jkwiKe70CSRFd5/d0Ti5ZNGsLAnP3z6oUtxXj6ijaLLjAbxn4bRAVV x8CUBmclUV2+gjASHResDLbfq/JMEQ4GNy14QvV2GbN0cqlacSGxMSy+19AFKQb9/3 nZUItNQS3zrcw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 26/33] KVM: s390: arm64: Introduce host definitions Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Steffen Eiden" Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Carstens" , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, "Oliver Upton" , "Christian Borntraeger" , "Alexander Gordeev" , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "Marc Zyngier" , "Vasily Gorbik" In-Reply-To: <20260812153631.3376090-27-seiden@linux.ibm.com> References: <20260812153631.3376090-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260812153631.3376090-27-seiden@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:27:18 +0000 Message-Id: <20260812162719.4DE931F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] The vcpu flag wrapper macros (`_vcpu_get_flag`, `_vcpu_set_flag`, e= tc.) are syntactically broken and will cause build failures if instantiated. -- --- Patch [26]: [PATCH v6 26/33] KVM: s390: arm64: Introduce host definitio= ns --- commit 9d09eb59e082ce9c0d035d93867a0ac53fc503a3 Author: Steffen Eiden KVM: s390: arm64: Introduce host definitions This commit adds basic definitions required by the ARM on s390 KVM host. It introduces struct kvm*arch definitions and various defines needed to run arm64 guests, selecting the new header variant if KVM_S390_ARM64 is defined. > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host_arm64.h b/arch/s390/include/a= sm/kvm_host_arm64.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..8088409bb0411 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host_arm64.h [ ... ] > +#define _vcpu_get_flag(v, flagset, ...) \ > + __vcpu_get_flag(&(v)->arch.flagset, __VA_ARGS__) > +#define _vcpu_set_flag(v, flagset, ...) \ > + __vcpu_set_flag(&(v)->arch.flagset, __VA_ARGS__) > +#define _vcpu_clear_flag(v, flagset, ...) \ > + __vcpu_clear_flag(&(v)->arch.flagset, __VA_ARGS__) > +#define _vcpu_test_and_clear_flag(v, flagset, ...) \ > + __vcpu_test_and_clear_flag(&(v)->arch.flagset, __VA_ARGS__) [Severity: Low] Will these wrapper macros cause a build failure when instantiated? Looking at __vcpu_get_flag() and the related macros from the shared arm64 headers, they expect exactly four arguments: v, flagset, f, and m.=20 In these wrappers, we pass &(v)->arch.flagset as the first argument and __VA_ARGS__ as the remaining arguments. Since standard flag constants usual= ly expand to two arguments (for example, BIT(0), BIT(0) for f and m), this invocation only provides three arguments in total instead of the required f= our. Does this need an additional argument or a different macro structure to resolve the arity mismatch? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260812153631.3376= 090-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com?part=3D26