On 09/27/2018 08:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.09.18 at 19:00, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 26/09/18 17:47, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
>>> @@ -232,12 +232,12 @@ bool p2m_mem_access_check(paddr_t gpa, unsigned long
>>> gla,
>>> {
>>> req->u.mem_access.flags |= MEM_ACCESS_GLA_VALID;
>>> req->u.mem_access.gla = gla;
>>> -
>>> - if ( npfec.kind == npfec_kind_with_gla )
>>> - req->u.mem_access.flags |= MEM_ACCESS_FAULT_WITH_GLA;
>>> - else if ( npfec.kind == npfec_kind_in_gpt )
>>> - req->u.mem_access.flags |= MEM_ACCESS_FAULT_IN_GPT;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + if ( npfec.kind == npfec_kind_with_gla )
>>> + req->u.mem_access.flags |= MEM_ACCESS_FAULT_WITH_GLA;
>>> + else if ( npfec.kind == npfec_kind_in_gpt )
>>> + req->u.mem_access.flags |= MEM_ACCESS_FAULT_IN_GPT;
>>
>> Nit. Newline here please, as it is not logically related with the block
>> below.
>
> And, despite it being just two comparisons, perhaps better to
> make it a switch() at the same time?
Sure -- this is logically separate from the follow-up patch, so I'll
re-send it as a singleton with the comments.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
