On 15/05/17 16:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.05.17 at 14:50, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> @@ -633,9 +633,12 @@ void pv_inject_event(const struct x86_event *event)
>> const struct trap_info *ti;
>> const uint8_t vector = event->vector;
>> const bool use_error_code =
>> + (event->type == X86_EVENTTYPE_HW_EXCEPTION) &&
>> ((vector < 32) && (TRAP_HAVE_EC & (1u << vector)));
>> unsigned int error_code = event->error_code;
>>
>> + ASSERT(event->type == X86_EVENTTYPE_HW_EXCEPTION ||
>> + event->type == X86_EVENTTYPE_SW_INTERRUPT);
> Wouldn't it be better to tighten this even further:
>
> if ( event->type == X86_EVENTTYPE_HW_EXCEPTION )
> {
> ASSERT(vector < 32);
> use_error_code = TRAP_HAVE_EC & (1u << vector);
> }
> else
> {
> ASSERT(event->type == X86_EVENTTYPE_SW_INTERRUPT);
> use_error_code = false;
> }
>
> ? If you agree
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> with this or a substantially identical change.
Yeah. I'm happy with this, and it will have a small knock-on to the
following patch.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
