|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v15 09/14] x86/hvm: Introduce lapic_save_regs_one func
On Ma, 2018-08-07 at 06:09 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 03.08.18 at 15:53, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This is used to save data from a single instance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Isaila <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
> > index 0795161..d35810e 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
> > @@ -1460,26 +1460,37 @@ static int lapic_save_hidden(struct domain
> > *d,
> > hvm_domain_context_t *h)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > +static int lapic_save_regs_one(struct vcpu *v,
> > hvm_domain_context_t *h)
> > +{
> > + struct vlapic *s;
> > +
> > + if ( !has_vlapic(v->domain) )
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if ( hvm_funcs.sync_pir_to_irr )
> > + hvm_funcs.sync_pir_to_irr(v);
> > +
> > + s = vcpu_vlapic(v);
> > +
> > + return hvm_save_entry(LAPIC_REGS, v->vcpu_id, h, s->regs);
> > +}
> Here as well as in patch 8 there's little point in having a local
> variable s
> which is used just once. If you really think you want to retain them,
> here it can be pointer to const (other than in patch 8 afaict), and
> like
> in patch 8 it could have an initializer instead of later having a
> separate
> assignment statement.
>
> >
> > static int lapic_save_regs(struct domain *d, hvm_domain_context_t
> > *h)
> > {
> > struct vcpu *v;
> > - struct vlapic *s;
> > - int rc = 0;
> > + int err = 0;
> >
> > if ( !has_vlapic(d) )
> > return 0;
> >
> > for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
> > {
> > - if ( hvm_funcs.sync_pir_to_irr )
> > - hvm_funcs.sync_pir_to_irr(v);
> > -
> > - s = vcpu_vlapic(v);
> > - if ( (rc = hvm_save_entry(LAPIC_REGS, v->vcpu_id, h, s-
> > >regs)) != 0 )
> > + err = lapic_save_regs_one(v, h);
> > + if ( err )
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - return rc;
> > + return err;
> > }
> Since the whole function is meant to go away anyway, it doesn't
> matter much, but why did you see a need to replace "rc" by "err"?
> This only increases code churn (even if just slightly). IOW: No
> need to change this, but something to consider in the future.
>
Err was just to have all the functions work with the same variable name
so this was done just for consistency.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |