From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.6] xen/public: arm: Use __typeof__
 rather than typeof
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:58:37 +0100
Message-ID: <562A3D0D.3000806@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: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=73188b2ac=julien.grall@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZpctC-0007qs-J8
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:00:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <562A57D902000078000AE2A2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Wei.Liu2@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 23/10/15 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.10.15 at 15:30, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> 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 <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>>
>> 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.

TBH, having a script which check the validity of the headers is not in
the top my todo list. Though it would be nice to have it.

But I don't think we should delay this valid patch just because we don't
have time to write a such script.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall