On 12.10.2022 15:07, Henry Wang wrote: > I thought to send my patch for fixing this issue tomorrow, but since you are > sending...
Well, I was hoping to get something in before the day closes. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> Subject: [PATCH][4.15] libxl/Arm: correct xc_shadow_control() invocation to >> fix build >> >> The backport didn't adapt to the earlier function prototype taking more >> (unused here) arguments. >> >> Fixes: c5215044578e ("xen/arm, libxl: Implement XEN_DOMCTL_shadow_op >> for Arm") >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> --- >> Also applicable to 4.14 and 4.13. >> >> --- a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c >> +++ b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c >> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_create(libxl__gc *gc, >> > > The definition of shadow_mb should also be changed to unsigned long, > and... > >> int r = xc_shadow_control(ctx->xch, domid, >> XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_SET_ALLOCATION, >> - &shadow_mb, 0); >> + NULL, 0, &shadow_mb, 0, NULL); >> if (r) { >> LOGED(ERROR, domid, >> "Failed to set %u MiB shadow allocation", shadow_mb); > > ...here should be %lu. Oh, indeed. Why did I not pay attention when looking at the reverse x86 change in 4.16? Thanks for pointing out. Jan
