> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 25 June 2018 13:49 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; xen-devel <xen- > de...@lists.xenproject.org>; Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH for-4.11 v2] x86/EFI: further correct FPU state handling > around runtime calls > > >>> On 25.06.18 at 14:24, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> Sent: 25 June 2018 13:18 > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i387.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i387.c > >> @@ -206,11 +206,11 @@ static inline void fpu_fxsave(struct vcp > >> /* VCPU FPU Functions */ > >> /*******************************/ > >> /* Restore FPU state whenever VCPU is schduled in. */ > >> -void vcpu_restore_fpu_eager(struct vcpu *v) > >> +void vcpu_restore_fpu_nonlazy(struct vcpu *v, bool need_stts) > >> { > >> /* Restore nonlazy extended state (i.e. parts not tracked by CR0.TS). > >> */ > >> if ( !v->arch.fully_eager_fpu && !v->arch.nonlazy_xstate_used ) > >> - return; > >> + goto maybe_stts; > > > > It's really just an 'out' label (AFAICT, since need_stts needs to be true > > for there to be any other semantic) so how about just calling it that rather > > than 'maybe_stts'?
Ok, I don't have a strong object the maybe_stts name so... Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > > To be honest, I like "out" less, as being too generic a name. Nor am I > convinced that, going forward (and leaving aside the fact that we may > decide to drop lazy mode altogether), all code paths need to reach there. > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
