[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v13 04/10] x86: detect and initialize Platform QoS Monitoring feature
>>> On 04.08.14 at 04:17, <dongxiao.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +struct pqos_monitor *__read_mostly pqosm = NULL; > +static bool_t __initdata opt_pqos = 0; Pointless initializer (at least on statics you should really avoid it; I can see reasons to leave it on the non-static one line earlier even though it's mostly pointless there too). > +static bool_t __initdata opt_pqos_monitor = 1; > +static unsigned int __initdata opt_rmid_max = 255; > + > +static void __init parse_pqos_param(char *s) > +{ > + char *ss, *val_str; > + int val; > + > + do { > + ss = strchr(s, ','); > + if ( ss ) > + *ss = '\0'; > + > + val = parse_bool(s); > + if ( val >= 0 ) > + opt_pqos = val; > + else > + { > + val = !!strncmp(s, "no-", 3); > + if ( !val ) > + s += 3; Beyond this point you don't use "val" anymore, i.e. other than for skipping the "no-" prefix you don't really use it, which can't be correct. > + > + val_str = strchr(s, ':'); > + if ( val_str ) > + *val_str++ = '\0'; > + > + if ( val_str && !strcmp(s, "pqos_monitor") && > + (val = parse_bool(val_str)) >= 0 ) > + opt_pqos_monitor = val; > + else if ( val_str && !strcmp(s, "rmid_max") ) > + opt_rmid_max = simple_strtoul(val_str, NULL, 0); Also - namely in the context of the generic command line parser changes to this effect - be careful to not permit "no-rmid_max=<value>". > +static void __init init_pqos_monitor(unsigned int rmid_max) > +{ > + unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; > + unsigned int rmid; > + > + if ( !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_QOSM) ) > + return; > + > + cpuid_count(0xf, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); > + if ( !edx ) > + return; > + > + pqosm = xzalloc(struct pqos_monitor); > + if ( !pqosm ) > + return; > + > + pqosm->qm_features = edx; > + pqosm->rmid_mask = ~(~0ull << get_count_order(ebx)); > + pqosm->rmid_inuse = 0; > + pqosm->rmid_min = 1; > + pqosm->rmid_max = min(rmid_max, ebx); Perhaps guard against this degenerating to 0xffffffff, making the operations below not what you intend, but also not fail? > +struct pqos_monitor { > + unsigned long rmid_mask; > + unsigned int rmid_min; Do you really need this field? It seems to only ever be 1. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |