On 13.12.2023 12:44, Federico Serafini wrote:
> I have another question regarding Rule 5.6 ("A `typedef' name shall be
> a unique identifier"), this time for X86:
> the violations left [1] involve guest_intpte_t, guest_l1e_t and
> guest_l2e_t, which seem to be deliberately defined differently depending
> on the number of guest paging levels.
> I would like to propose a deviation for these types, do you agree?Yes. In fact I think we said so already when discussing this rule. The whole rebuild-same-file-for-multiple-purposes can hardly work without something along the lines of multiple ways of defining the same macros and/or typedefs for each of the instances. Jan > [1] > https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/XEN.ecdf/ECLAIR_normal/staging/X86_64-2023/446/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service/MC3R1.R5.6.html > > Regards
