On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 03:49:40PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > 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.
I think Jan was complaining two __func__'s (two string literals). Wei. > > ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
