Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/hvm: give HVMOP_set_param and HVMOP_get_param their own functions

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> 05/01/15 4:05 PM >>>
>--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>@@ -5638,6 +5638,299 @@ static int hvmop_set_evtchn_upcall_vector(
>return 0;
>}
 >
>+static int hvmop_set_param(
>+    XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_hvm_param_t) arg)
>+{
>+    struct domain *curr_d = current->domain;
>+    struct xen_hvm_param a;
>+    struct domain *d;
>+    struct vcpu *v;
>+    int rc = 0;

Iirc Andrew indicated that Coverity would complain about dead initializers like
this.

>+    if ( copy_from_guest(&a, arg, 1) )
>+        return -EFAULT;
>+
>+    if ( a.index >= HVM_NR_PARAMS )
>+        return -EINVAL;
>+
>+    d = rcu_lock_domain_by_any_id(a.domid);
>+    if ( d == NULL )
>+        return -ESRCH;
>+
>+    rc = -EINVAL;

(Not used anywhere up from here.)

>+    if ( is_pvh_domain(d)
>+         && (a.index != HVM_PARAM_CALLBACK_IRQ) )
>+        goto out;

It would have been nice if you had corrected style issues like the misplaced &&
as you go; I'll try to remember to do so while committing (together with a few 
more
and the adjustment for the issue above).

>+    case HVM_PARAM_IOREQ_PFN:
>+    case HVM_PARAM_BUFIOREQ_PFN:
>+    case HVM_PARAM_BUFIOREQ_EVTCHN:
>+    {
>+        domid_t domid;
>+
>+        /* May need to create server */
>+        domid = d->arch.hvm_domain.params[HVM_PARAM_DM_DOMAIN];
>+        rc = hvm_create_ioreq_server(d, domid, 1, 1, NULL);
>+        if ( rc != 0 && rc != -EEXIST )
>+            goto out;
>+        /*FALLTHRU*/
>+    }
>+    default:

Andrew - will Coverity be happy with the fall-through comment being followed
by a closing brace?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel