[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 |