Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] x86/cpu/vpmu: Add Hygon Dhyana and AMD Zen support for vPMU

From: Pu Wen <puwen@hygon.cn>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Brian Woods <brian.woods@amd.com>,
	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] x86/cpu/vpmu: Add Hygon Dhyana and AMD Zen support for vPMU
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 18:08:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3443a6b7-c8ea-3618-a8c8-4efc0a6d09bf@hygon.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5C9B365F020000780022211F@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>

On 2019/3/27 16:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.03.19 at 09:16, <puwen@hygon.cn> wrote:
>> On 2019/3/27 0:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 25.03.19 at 14:30, <puwen@hygon.cn> wrote:
>>>> +    default:
>>>> +        printk(XENLOG_WARNING "VPMU: Unsupported CPU family %#x\n",
>>>> +               current_cpu_data.x86);
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>        }
>>>
>>> While I'm not going to insist in cases where you add to existing
>>> switch()-es which lack such blank lines, please add a blank line
>>> between the case blocks here. Yet then again I wonder whether
>>> the default case wouldn't better move into the shared function
>>> as well, keying off of e.g. num_counters still being zero.
>>
>> Then as there is only one case in hygon_vpmu_init(), how about remove
>> switch()-es in this function?
> 
> Well, personally I'd prefer to keep the switch(), as that what's
> going to be needed once you introduce a second model, but I
> won't insist.

Keeping the switch() is also fine to me.

-- 
Regards,
Pu Wen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel