On June 16, 2016 4:29 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 16.06.16 at 04:03, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On June 14, 2016 5:03 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >> - if ( amd_iommu_update_ivrs_mapping_acpi() != 0 )
> >> + rc = amd_iommu_update_ivrs_mapping_acpi();
> >> + if ( rc )
> >> goto error_out;
> >>
> >> /* initialize io-apic interrupt remapping entries */
> >> - if ( iommu_intremap && amd_iommu_setup_ioapic_remapping() != 0 )
> >> + if ( iommu_intremap )
> >> + rc = amd_iommu_setup_ioapic_remapping();
> >> + if ( rc )
> >> goto error_out;
> >
> >
> > Is it better to indent this if() here? Then,
> >
> > + if ( iommu_intremap )
> > + {
> > + rc = amd_iommu_setup_ioapic_remapping();
> > + if ( rc )
> > + goto error_out;
> > + }
>
> What would this help (apart from increasing LOC and patch size)?
>
Ah, first of all, it is not a logic issue, but just make the code clear:
- this if( rc ) is called only if ( iommu_intremap ) is true.
- this error is from amd_iommu_setup_ioapic_remapping().
Also from '- if ( iommu_intremap && amd_iommu_setup_ioapic_remapping() != 0
)', I'd like to fix it as my suggestion.
Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
