Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: superficial clean-ups

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 11.06.19 12:18, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/11/19 10:20 AM, Baodong Chen wrote:
> > * Remove redundant set 'DOMDYING_dead'
> > domain_create() will set this when fail, thus no need
> > set in arch_domain_create().
> >
> > * Set error when really happened
> > diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c
> > index 86341bc..d6cdcf8 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> > @@ -1894,9 +1894,11 @@ struct scheduler *scheduler_alloc(unsigned int sched_id, 
> > int *perr)
> >       return NULL;
> >   
> >    found:
> > -    *perr = -ENOMEM;
> >       if ( (sched = xmalloc(struct scheduler)) == NULL )
> > +    {
> > +        *perr = -ENOMEM;
> >           return NULL;
> > +    }
> >       memcpy(sched, schedulers[i], sizeof(*sched));
> >       if ( (*perr = SCHED_OP(sched, init)) != 0 )
> I was going to say, this is a common idiom in the Xen code, and the
> compiler will end up re-organizing things such that the write doesn't
> happen anyway.  But in this case, its' actually writing through a
> pointer before and after a function call; I don't think the compiler
> would actually be allowed to optimize this write away.
>
> So, I guess I'd be OK with this particular hunk.  Dario, any opinions?
I'd rather switch to PTR_ERR() here dropping the perr parameter.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel