>>> On 07.02.19 at 10:15, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2019, at 04:04, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2/7/19 6:32 AM, Christopher Clark wrote: >>> It uses that null test because both are XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM type in >>> the function signature: >>> long do_argo_op( >>> unsigned int cmd, >>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg1, >>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg2, >>> unsigned long arg3, >>> unsigned long arg4); >>> and since it does that, the comment states NULL rather than zero. >>> It is Xen's definition for NULL that is used, so the expected value in >>> the register when the hypercall is invoked is: zero. >> >> As above, I don't think it is clearly define in the headers that NULL means > 0. This is rather an implicit written rules in the hope that every OS are > going to follow that. >> >> I know, I am pedantic here (hence the NIT) :). And I realize this is not > related to this series and a few places in the code assumes the same. >> >>>>> + * arg3: 0 (ZERO) >>>>> + * arg4: 0 (ZERO) >>>> >>>> NIT: I guess those to will be 0 in an unsigned long value? >>> Yes. >> >> Can this be clarified in a follow-up patch? > > Since this is a comment revision, could it be made by the committer during > the imminent merge of this Argo series?
I'm not going to alter the comments, as I don't really see what is in need of clarification here. If any clarification is indeed needed, this will need to happen in follow-on patches. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
