[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3226f821-1461-b7cf-3f75-ba2e3dcaa446@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:57:49 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Use a stable condition around all VT-d PI paths
On 11/16/21 18:42, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> + return kvm_arch_has_assigned_device(kvm) &&
>> + irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP) &&
>> + irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && enable_apicv;
> Bad indentation/alignment.
What is even the right indentation? I'd just wrap everything in
parentheses but then check patch complains "return is not a function"
(NSS), so I went for two tabs and called it a day.
> Not that it's likely to matter, but would it make sense to invert the checks so
> that they're short-circuited on the faster KVM checks? E.g. fastest to slowest:
>
> return irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && enable_apic &&
> kvm_arch_has_assigned_device(kvm) &&
> irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP);
Sure, why not.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists