> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Sent: 17 September 2019 14:03
> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Suravee Suthikulpanit
> <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>; Andrew
> Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>;
> Roger Pau Monne
> <roger....@citrix.com>; Jun Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; Kevin Tian
> <kevin.t...@intel.com>;
> BorisOstrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com>; Paul Durrant <p...@xen.org>; Wei
> Liu <w...@xen.org>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/HVM: move NOFLUSH handling out of
> hvm_set_cr3()
>
> On 17.09.2019 14:45, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org> On Behalf Of Jan
> >> Beulich
> >> Sent: 17 September 2019 07:15
> >>
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> >> @@ -2080,6 +2080,8 @@ static int hvmemul_write_cr(
> >> HVMTRACE_LONG_2D(CR_WRITE, reg, TRC_PAR_LONG(val));
> >> switch ( reg )
> >> {
> >> + bool noflush;
> >> +
> >
> > I said this before... I think the tighter case-scope is better.
>
> I recall you saying so, but I don't recall you actually making this a
> requirement to get your ack.
>
> > Cosmetically it may look a little odd, but surely it gives the
> > compiler a better chance to optimize?
>
> I don't think so - they're pretty good to limit the life range of
> variables (at least in not overly hairy functions) these days. The
> more narrow scopes we often ask for are more for the reader to
> easily know what the intended usage range of a variable is.
Ok. I'm not going to insist, but I would still prefer case-scope here.
Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <p...@xen.org>
>
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
