Make Entry::handler_addr() a public method#354
Merged
josephlr merged 3 commits intorust-osdev:masterfrom Mar 25, 2022
Merged
Conversation
josephlr
requested changes
Mar 24, 2022
Signed-off-by: Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>
josephlr
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2022
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks for adding the clarifying comment and for merging it in! Much appreciated. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a very minor change that's both harmless and useful for various purposes in an OS.
PR submitted at the request of @phil-opp (see here)
Potential changes
Note that we could gate the function (or just its
pub-ness) behindcfg(feature = "instructions")for consistency, but then we'd need to change the implementation ofDebugforEntry. Seems best to leave it as is.We could also construct a
VirtAddrfrom the return value and return that instead, but personally I believe that adds unnecessary complexity. I also think some of this crate's other functions assumeVirtAddrs in a lot of high-level wrapper functions where the value doesn't necessarily represent a virtual address (but that's a matter for a separate issue), so I'm inclined to not return aVirtAddrhere.