> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:34 PM > To: Wu, Feng <feng...@intel.com> > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix a BUG_ON issue > > >>> On 30.08.16 at 01:19, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:51 PM > >> >>> On 29.08.16 at 11:14, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/io.c > >> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/io.c > >> > @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static struct vcpu *vector_hashing_dest(const > struct > >> domain *d, > >> > for ( i = 0; i <= mod; i++ ) > >> > { > >> > idx = find_next_bit(dest_vcpu_bitmap, d->max_vcpus, idx) + > >> > 1; > >> > - BUG_ON(idx >= d->max_vcpus); > >> > + BUG_ON(idx > d->max_vcpus); > >> > } > >> > > >> > dest = d->vcpu[idx - 1]; > >> > >> Wouldn't it be better to change the code to > >> > >> unsigned int idx = -1; > >> > >> for ( i = 0; i <= mod; i++ ) > >> { > >> idx = find_next_bit(dest_vcpu_bitmap, d->max_vcpus, idx + 1); > >> BUG_ON(idx >= d->max_vcpus); > >> } > >> > >> dest = d->vcpu[idx]; > > > > Thanks for the comments, both are good to me, but I slightly prefer this > > one. Do I need to send another version? > > Not necessarily - can you reason a little about your preference? I
Oh, no particular reason, just feel it looks a little simple! :) But I am fine if you prefer the other one. Thanks, Feng > particularly dislike the subtraction necessary here: > > dest = d->vcpu[idx - 1]; > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
