On 05/11/18 15:48, Wei Liu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:04:37AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 02.11.18 at 16:55, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c >>> @@ -298,8 +298,21 @@ static unsigned int write_stub_trampoline( >>> } >>> >>> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct stubs, stubs); >>> + >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV >>> void lstar_enter(void); >>> void cstar_enter(void); >>> +#else >>> +static inline void lstar_enter(void) >>> +{ >>> + panic("%s called", __func__); >>> +} >>> + >>> +static inline void cstar_enter(void) >>> +{ >>> + panic("%s called", __func__); >>> +} >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PV */ >> Do we really need two separate stubs (and two separate string literals) >> here? > I think it is clearer if we have two distinct messages. But I'm not too > fussed either way really. If you feel strongly about this, I'm happy to > change it to only one function.
This is the correct way to do it. __func__ will already be in the string table, and the format string (being identical) will be merged. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
