On 15.11.2024 11:27, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:04 PM Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 14.11.2024 15:02, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 2:52 PM Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 19.08.2024 16:29, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c >>>>> @@ -287,19 +287,36 @@ static bool __init match_guid(const EFI_GUID >>>>> *guid1, const EFI_GUID *guid2) >>>>> /* generic routine for printing error messages */ >>>>> static void __init PrintErrMesg(const CHAR16 *mesg, EFI_STATUS ErrCode) >>>>> { >>>>> - static const CHAR16* const ErrCodeToStr[] __initconstrel = { >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_NOT_FOUND] = L"Not found", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_NO_MEDIA] = L"The device has >>>>> no media", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_MEDIA_CHANGED] = L"Media changed", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_DEVICE_ERROR] = L"Device error", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_VOLUME_CORRUPTED] = L"Volume >>>>> corrupted", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_ACCESS_DENIED] = L"Access denied", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES] = L"Out of >>>>> resources", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_VOLUME_FULL] = L"Volume is full", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION] = L"Security >>>>> violation", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_CRC_ERROR] = L"CRC error", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_COMPROMISED_DATA] = L"Compromised >>>>> data", >>>>> - [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL] = L"Buffer too >>>>> small", >>>>> +#define ERROR_MESSAGE_LIST \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_NOT_FOUND, "Not found") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_NO_MEDIA, "The device has no media") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_MEDIA_CHANGED, "Media changed") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_DEVICE_ERROR, "Device error") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_VOLUME_CORRUPTED, "Volume corrupted") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_ACCESS_DENIED, "Access denied") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES, "Out of resources") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_VOLUME_FULL, "Volume is full") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION, "Security violation") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_CRC_ERROR, "CRC error") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_COMPROMISED_DATA, "Compromised data") \ >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE(EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL, "Buffer too small") >>>>> + >>>>> + static const struct ErrorStrings { >>>>> + CHAR16 start; >>>>> +#undef ERROR_MESSAGE >>>>> +#define ERROR_MESSAGE(code, str) CHAR16 msg_ ## code[sizeof(str)]; >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE_LIST >>>>> + } ErrorStrings __initconst = { >>>>> + 0 >>>>> +#undef ERROR_MESSAGE >>>>> +#define ERROR_MESSAGE(code, str) , L ## str >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE_LIST >>>>> + }; >>>>> + static const uint16_t ErrCodeToStr[] __initconst = { >>>>> +#undef ERROR_MESSAGE >>>>> +#define ERROR_MESSAGE(code, str) \ >>>>> + [~EFI_ERROR_MASK & code] = offsetof(struct ErrorStrings, msg_ ## >>>>> code), >>>>> + ERROR_MESSAGE_LIST >>>>> }; >>>>> EFI_STATUS ErrIdx = ErrCode & ~EFI_ERROR_MASK; >>>>> >>>> >>>> A while ago Andrew and I discussed this, and I was apparently wrongly >>>> expecting >>>> him to come back here, as (iirc; no record of this that I could find in >>>> the mail >>>> archives, so I'm sorry if my recollection is wrong) he was the one to >>>> object. We >>>> concluded that it wants at least considering to undo the respective part of >>>> 00d5d5ce23e6, finding a different solution to the Clang issue there.
This is ... >>> I thought this patch was already applied. >>> I didn't remember any clang issue. >>> As far as I know, this was delayed by an issue that turned out to be >>> different. >>> So, any reason why not to merge the original patch? >> >> Afaict the alternative would result in tidier code, and hence might indeed be >> preferable. But since the reason I didn't long commit the patch is Andrew >> wanting it to not be committed, it'll need to be him to chime in here. Even >> if only to indicate that I'm misremembering. > > What alternative are you talking about? Was it something discussed elsewhere? ... the alternative I'm talking about. Jan
