On 25.06.2024 12:14, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote:
> In the file common/softirq macro set_bit is called with argument
> smp_processor_id.
> Once expanded this set_bit's argument is used in sizeof operations
> and thus 'smp_processor_id', being a macro that expands to a
> function call with potential side effects, generates a violation.
Noticing only now, but applicable also to patch 2: "expands" isn't quite
right, is it? That's true for x86, but apparently not for Arm. Unless I
managed to overlook something there. So perhaps "may expand" instead?
> --- a/xen/common/softirq.c
> +++ b/xen/common/softirq.c
> @@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ void cpu_raise_softirq_batch_finish(void)
>
> void raise_softirq(unsigned int nr)
> {
> - set_bit(nr, &softirq_pending(smp_processor_id()));
> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + set_bit(nr, &softirq_pending(cpu));
> }
Nit (style): Blank line between declaration(s) and statement(s) please.
I guess both aspects could be taken care of while committing.
Jan
