|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] x86/vmx: reorder code in vmx_deliver_posted_intr
On 30.07.2020 16:03, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Remove the unneeded else branch, which allows to reduce the
> indentation of a larger block of code, while making the flow of the
> function more obvious.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
One minor request (could likely be taken care of while
committing):
> @@ -2014,41 +2016,36 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v,
> u8 vector)
> * VMEntry as it used to be.
> */
> pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc);
> + vcpu_kick(v);
> + return;
> }
> - else
> - {
> - struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
>
> - prev.control = v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc.control;
> + prev.control = v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc.control;
>
> - do {
> - /*
> - * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> - * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> - * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, no need to
> - * sent posted-interrupts notification event as well,
> - * according to hardware behavior.
> - */
> - if ( pi_test_sn(&prev) || pi_test_on(&prev) )
> - {
> - vcpu_kick(v);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - old.control = v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc.control &
> - ~((1 << POSTED_INTR_ON) | (1 << POSTED_INTR_SN));
> - new.control = v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc.control |
> - (1 << POSTED_INTR_ON);
> + do {
> + /*
> + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, no need to
> + * sent posted-interrupts notification event as well,
> + * according to hardware behavior.
> + */
Would be nice to s/sent/send/ here as you move it (maybe also
remove the plural from "posted-interrupts") and - if possible -
re-flow for the now increased space on the right side.
Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |