On 20.12.2023 13:15, Federico Serafini wrote: > On 20/12/23 12:55, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 20.12.2023 12:48, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 20/12/2023 11:03, Federico Serafini wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c >>>> @@ -210,8 +210,8 @@ void do_sysreg(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, >>>> /* RO at EL0. RAZ/WI at EL1 */ >>>> if ( regs_mode_is_user(regs) ) >>>> return handle_ro_raz(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 0); >>>> - else >>>> - return handle_raz_wi(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 1); >>>> + >>>> + return handle_raz_wi(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 1); >>> >>> I don't 100% like this change (mostly because I find if/else clearer >>> here). >> >> While (it doesn't matter here) my view on this is different, I'm still >> puzzled why the tool would complain / why a change here is necessary. >> It is not _one_ return statement, but there's still (and obviously) no >> way of falling through. > > The tool is configurable: > if you prefer deviate these cases instead of refactoring the code > I can update the configuration.
I guess this then needs to be discussed on the first call in the new year. Stefano - can you take note of that, please? Jan
