From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/21] xen/arm: move is_vcpu_running
 function to sched.h
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:34:46 +0100
Message-ID: <539EC846020000780001A829@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1402580192-13937-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1402580192-13937-13-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<539DC941.8010702@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <539DC941.8010702@linaro.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: vijay.kilari@gmail.com
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Prasun Kapoor <Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>, tim@xen.org, Vijaya Kumar K <vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, "xen.org" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, george.dunlap@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 15.06.14 at 18:26, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> @@ -826,6 +826,22 @@ void watchdog_domain_destroy(struct domain *d);
>>   #define need_iommu(d)    (0)
>>   #endif
>>
>> +static inline int is_vcpu_running(struct domain *d, int vcpuid)
>> +{
>> +    struct vcpu *v;
>> +
>> +    if ( vcpuid >= d->max_vcpus )
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>> +    v = d->vcpu[vcpuid];
>> +    if ( v == NULL )
>> +        return 0;
>> +    if (test_bit(_VPF_down, &v->pause_flags) )
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>> +    return 1;
>> +}

If this function was to become common code, you'd have to not only
justify it (as requested by Julien), but also
- name it according to its function (VPF_down not set doesn't mean
  "running", it merely means "up")
- make it properly check d->vcpu != NULL alongside the other checks
- returning a boolean value it should have return type bool_t
- "d" and "v" only ever used for read accesses both pointers should
  get const-qualified
- fix the one coding style violation in the last if().

Jan