[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] Nested VMX: Fix IA32_VMX_CR4_FIXED1 msr emulation
Jan Beulich wrote on 2013-09-11: >>>> On 11.09.13 at 04:52, Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> + hvm_cpuid(0x0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); >> + if ( eax >= 0x7 ) > > Not a need to re-submit this patch, but for the future I'd recommend > trying to avoid deep scope nesting where possible. Here that's pretty > simple: If for whatever reason you dislike using the switch() approach > I suggested in the v2 review, invert the condition above, and make the > body of the if() simply "break;". > >> + { >> + ecx = 0; >> + hvm_cpuid(0x7, &ecx, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); > > That's confusing: A casual reader might assume that the first use of > &ecx is actually a typo. Either use a dummy variable, or at least be > consistent and funnel _all_ unused output into the same variable (i.e. > hvm_cpuid(0x7, &ecx, &ebx, &ecx, &ecx)). But again, the switch() > approach suggested earlier would avoid all that. > > In the end, with more uses of hvm_cpuid() appearing, we may want to > make the function tolerate NULL inputs to allow to make clear at the > call site which of the outputs aren't cared about. > >> + if ( ebx & cpufeat_mask(X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE) ) >> + data |= X86_CR4_FSGSBASE; >> + if ( ebx & cpufeat_mask(X86_FEATURE_SMEP) ) >> + data |= X86_CR4_SMEP; >> + if ( ebx & cpufeat_mask(X86_FEATURE_SMAP) ) >> + data |= X86_CR4_SMAP; >> + >> + if ( eax >= 0xa ) >> + { > > Same here then. > > Jan > >> + hvm_cpuid(0xa, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); >> + /* Check whether guest has the perf monitor feature. */ >> + if ( (eax & 0xff) && (eax & 0xff00) ) >> + data |= X86_CR4_PCE; >> + } >> + } > Should I resend this or just the first patch is enough? Best regards, Yang _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |