In D45072#1028956, @mav wrote:

I wonder if there is any real architecture where pointer load/store is non-atomic. For things that are going to be executed between once and never it feels like you are over-engineering it. :)

Using atomics for fetching/modifying the decode function pointer

Replaced by review D45072, will address the review comments from this review in the newer one.

Updated based on review comments

In D39636#1023799, @brooks wrote:

What is the value of MK_VIMAGE_SUPPORT over MK_VIMAGE? We now have an unused MK_VIMAGE. What will it control?

This commit is missing an addition of tools/build/options/WITHOUT_VIMAGE and WITHOUT_VIMAGE_SUPPORT and breaks GitHub CI because makeman spots the missing files.

Updated according to review comments

Added parenthesis based on comments.

In D44928#1024386, @glebius wrote:

Or, this can go under SOCKET_HHOOK new option. Cause these two hhooks aren't really related. What do you think?

Changed from _nolock to _unlocked in naming and updated commit log message.

In D44811#1021514, @glebius wrote:

IMHO, such trivial changes do not require posting a review.

In D44529#1020279, @jhb wrote:

Looking at all those, I think we probably don't need a separate SI_SUB_DEVCTL_NOTIFY (though I wonder why that isn't SI_ORDER_FIRST), but I do think a separate SI_SUB_GEOM for GEOM classes to use (and the fdt_slicer thing) would be sensible. It could be defined as 0x3400000 and would untangle a bit of this more cleanly I think.

In D44620#1020403, @jhb wrote:

LGTM. If the file was using normal style it wouldn't need the indentation fixup (which will add a lot of noise). I would maybe suggest instead to fix the indentation to not be unusual in lieu of the one char fixup.

Do you want me to just switch things to use __unused instead of the macros to conditionally add it?

In D44623#1017858, @kib wrote:

In D44623#1017833, @markj wrote:

In D44623#1017481, @kib wrote:

I have some bad feeling about all that <feature>_unused macros. Would it better to change it to unconditionally apply unused globall?

I guess __unused has no effect if the compiler can observe that the annotated variable is in fact used? Maybe it would trigger warnings?

I don't really like all the __unused aliases either, but I also don't want to just use __unused everywhere, it would be confusing.

gcc manual describes the attribute((unused)) as possible unused, with the only mentioned consequence of gcc not issuing warning if really unused.

In D44632#1017491, @glebius wrote:

I was about to ask "where is #ifdef TCP_HHOOKS?" But then I realized that socket_hhh isn't hidden under any ifdef.

Unrelated to this review, but may I ask if it is possible to hide socket_hhh and other stuff that came in 4ec7371233268 under TCP_HHOOKS? Or maybe SOCKET_HHOOKS, if these two are used as two independent features.

Update summary

In D10469#794487, @emaste wrote:

There seems to be no change here or in https://github.com/trixirt/libc11ext in the last five years. @trix_juniper.net are you still planning to pursue this?

Made changes according to review comments.
Also fixed an issue when compiling gve_adminq.c due to the addition of
prototypes that use "bool", but the .c file was not including sys/types.h

Updated based on review comments

Updated based on review comments

In D44535#1015791, @andrew wrote:

Is there a reason to not have cpu_reset_hook = psci_reset by default so we can remove the NULL check?

Fixed typo in comment.