Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932406AbdHYOCL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:02:11 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:41733 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754632AbdHYOCH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:02:07 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:02:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 20/41] x86: Replace access to desc_struct:a/b fields
In-Reply-To: <b90e5c8c-0ca0-7742-d147-00412fc4cc4c@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708251601530.1883@nanos>
References: <20170825103103.287814238@linutronix.de> <20170825104414.553007376@linutronix.de> <b90e5c8c-0ca0-7742-d147-00412fc4cc4c@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 565
Lines: 19

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:

> 
> >  
> > Index: b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> > @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static void __init xen_load_gdt_boot(con
> >  static inline bool desc_equal(const struct desc_struct *d1,
> >  			      const struct desc_struct *d2)
> >  {
> > -	return d1->a == d2->a && d1->b == d2->b;
> > +	return memcmp(d1, d2, sizeof(*d1));
> >  }
> 
> Shouldn't this be !memcmp() ?

Bah yes.