On 24.01.2024 02:34, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > I managed to get back to read the mailing list and noticed this patch. > > Is it still relevant and needs to be reviewed? > > Are there any outstanding disagreements between maintainers on the > approach to take here? Or should I just go ahead and review it?
It is still relevant from my pov, and everything that may be controversial is said ... > On Tue, 9 Jan 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The type not being used in do_bug_frame() is suspicious. Apparently >> that's solely because the type uses a pointer-to-const parameter, >> when run_in_exception_handler() wants functions taking pointer-to-non- >> const. Drop the const, in turn requiring Arm's do_bug_frame() to also >> have its const dropped. This then brings that function also closer to >> the common one, with Arm's use of vaddr_t remaining as a difference. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> --- >> This is an alternative proposal to >> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-12/msg01385.html, >> albeit without paving a road towards Andrew's desire of getting rid of >> show_execution_state_nonconst() again. Retaining (and propagating) the >> const would imply the need to cast away the const-ness somewhere on (at >> least) the path to invoking gdb stub code. Personally I'm averse to such >> casting away of const-ness ... ... here. Without Andrew commenting, I'm afraid it's not actually clear whether he objects to this approach, or is meaning to tolerate it silently, or actually views it as a step in a good direction, even if not quite getting where earlier on he thought we may want to move to. Jan
