Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 07/25] x86: refactor psr: L3 CAT: implement get hw info flow.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 06.04.17 at 13:16, <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17-04-06 02:36:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.04.17 at 08:05, <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 17-04-05 09:37:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 01.04.17 at 15:53, <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > @@ -183,6 +187,22 @@ static bool feat_init_done(const struct 
> psr_socket_info *info)
>> >> >      return false;
>> >> >  }
>> >> >  
>> >> > +static enum psr_feat_type psr_cbm_type_to_feat_type(enum cbm_type type)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +    enum psr_feat_type feat_type;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +    switch ( type )
>> >> > +    {
>> >> > +    case PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3:
>> >> > +        feat_type = PSR_SOCKET_L3_CAT;
>> >> > +        break;
>> >> > +    default:
>> >> > +        ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>> >> > +    }
>> >> > +
>> >> > +    return feat_type;
>> >> 
>> >> I'm pretty certain this will (validly) produce an uninitialized variable
>> >> warning at least in a non-debug build. Not how I did say "add
>> >> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()" in the v9 review.
>> >> 
>> > Do you mean to init feat_type to 'PSR_SOCKET_MAX_FEAT' and then check it
>> > at the end of function using ASSERT?
>> 
>> That's a (less desirable) option, but what I really mean is take v9
>> code and _add_ ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() first thing in the default
>> case.
> 
> DYM we should initialize 'feat_type' to a valid value, e.g. PSR_SOCKET_L3_CAT
> and keep ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() in default case?

Yi, please. Did you read my previous reply, where I think I did say
very precisely what I mean? Why would you pick some random
valid type here?

Jan


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