Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/8] tools/xenalyze: Fix multiple instances of *HYPERCALL_MAX

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 7/8] tools/xenalyze: Fix multiple instances of 
*HYPERCALL_MAX"):
> We HYPERCALL_MAX defined as the maximum enumerated hypercall, and we
    ^ missing word `have' ?

> have PV_HYPERCALL_MAX defined as some other number (presumably based
> on experience with actual hypercalls).  Both are used to size arrays
> (hypercall_name[] and pv_data.hypercall_count[], respectively).
> 
> Rename PV_HYPERCALL_MAX to HYPERCALL_MAX, and use HYPERCALL_MAX to
> size (and iterate over) all arrays.
...
> diff --git a/tools/xentrace/xenalyze.c b/tools/xentrace/xenalyze.c
> index 3e26a4c..4ae50b8 100644
> --- a/tools/xentrace/xenalyze.c
> +++ b/tools/xentrace/xenalyze.c
> @@ -1068,9 +1068,10 @@ enum {
>      HYPERCALL_sysctl,
>      HYPERCALL_domctl,
>      HYPERCALL_kexec_op,
> -    HYPERCALL_MAX
>  };
>  
> +#define HYPERCALL_MAX 38
> +
>  char *hypercall_name[HYPERCALL_MAX] = {
>      [HYPERCALL_set_trap_table]="set_trap_table",
>      [HYPERCALL_mmu_update]="mmu_update",
> @@ -1509,13 +1510,12 @@ char *pv_name[PV_MAX] = {
>      [PV_HYPERCALL_SUBCALL]="hypercall (subcall)",

Does this produce a build error if HYPERCALL_MAX is too small ?

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel