| Message ID | 20190613150641.4304-1-naresh.kamboju@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [kvm-unit-tests] x86: fix syntax error | expand |
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote: > > This patch fixes this build error, > kvm-unit-tests/lib/x86/processor.h:497:45: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘;’ token > return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20)); > ~ ^ > Fixes: ddbb68a60534b ("kvm-unit-test: x86: Add a wrapper to check if the CPU supports NX bit in MSR_EFER") Cc: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com> Cc: Karl Heubaum <karl.heubaum@oracle.com> > Signed-off-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> > --- > lib/x86/processor.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/x86/processor.h b/lib/x86/processor.h > index 0a65808..823d65d 100644 > --- a/lib/x86/processor.h > +++ b/lib/x86/processor.h > @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static inline int has_spec_ctrl(void) > > static inline int cpu_has_efer_nx(void) > { > - return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20)); > + return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20))); Just because I also encountered this issue: why would you add another bracket instead of removing one?
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 01:09, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > This patch fixes this build error, > > kvm-unit-tests/lib/x86/processor.h:497:45: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘;’ token > > return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20)); > > ~ ^ > > > > Fixes: ddbb68a60534b ("kvm-unit-test: x86: Add a wrapper to check if the CPU supports NX bit in MSR_EFER") > Cc: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com> > Cc: Karl Heubaum <karl.heubaum@oracle.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> > > --- > > lib/x86/processor.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/x86/processor.h b/lib/x86/processor.h > > index 0a65808..823d65d 100644 > > --- a/lib/x86/processor.h > > +++ b/lib/x86/processor.h > > @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static inline int has_spec_ctrl(void) > > > > static inline int cpu_has_efer_nx(void) > > { > > - return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20)); > > + return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20))); > > Just because I also encountered this issue: why would you add another > bracket instead of removing one? I see two !! and thought that we might need (( Sorry if that does not make sense. - Naresh > >
diff --git a/lib/x86/processor.h b/lib/x86/processor.h index 0a65808..823d65d 100644 --- a/lib/x86/processor.h +++ b/lib/x86/processor.h @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static inline int has_spec_ctrl(void) static inline int cpu_has_efer_nx(void) { - return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20)); + return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20))); } #endif
This patch fixes this build error, kvm-unit-tests/lib/x86/processor.h:497:45: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘;’ token return !!((cpuid(0x80000001).d & (1 << 20)); ~ ^ ) Signed-off-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> --- lib/x86/processor.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)