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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.05.14 at 10:27, <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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;
> 

Yes, of course it's fine to keep the comment (but please fix its style
- it's missing a stop at the end).

Jan


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