Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/MCE: bypass uninitialized vcpu in vMCE injection

[Kai Huang <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/07/2014 04:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 07.05.14 at 09:29, <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/vmce.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/vmce.c
> > @@ -356,6 +356,10 @@ int inject_vmce(struct domain *d, int vcpu)
> >           if ( vcpu != VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST && vcpu != v->vcpu_id )
> >               continue;
> >   
> > +        /* In case of broadcasting, don't inject to uninitialized VCPU */
> > +        if ( vcpu == VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST && !v->is_initialised )
> > +            continue;
> > +
> Conceptually fine, but mechanically in need of improvement: Please
> fold the check with the previous one, to avoid checking for
> VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST twice.
>
> I'd do this as
>
>          if ( vcpu != VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST ? vcpu != v->vcpu_id
>                                             : !v->is_initialised )
>              continue;
Thanks for comments. In this case, is it OK to you to add below comments 
just before the if statement? I think it's better to keep the comments 
somewhere.
        /* In case of broadcasting, don't inject to uninitialized VCPU */
        if ( vcpu != VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST ? vcpu != v->vcpu_id
                                           : !v->is_initialised )
            continue;

Thanks,
-Kai
> but if you prefer some other style (like nested if/else), that would
> be fine with me too.
>
> Also please don't forget to also Cc the second x86/MCE maintainer.
>
> Jan

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