From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V7 4/5] xen,
 libxc: Request page fault injection via libxc
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:15:09 +0300
Message-ID: <53FDCBCD.7000507@bitdefender.com>
References: <1407943689-9249-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>	<1407943689-9249-4-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>	<53FCB226020000780002DA7B@mail.emea.novell.com>	<53FDC6FD.4040209@bitdefender.com>
	<53FDE6C6020000780002E018@mail.emea.novell.com>
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: <53FDE6C6020000780002E018@mail.emea.novell.com>
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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/27/2014 03:10 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 27.08.14 at 13:54, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> On 08/26/2014 05:13 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 13.08.14 at 17:28, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>>> +    case XEN_DOMCTL_set_pagefault_info:
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +        if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
>>>> +        {
>>>> +            d->arch.hvm_domain.fault_info.address_space =
>>>> +                op->u.set_pagefault_info.address_space;
>>>> +            d->arch.hvm_domain.fault_info.virtual_address =
>>>> +                op->u.set_pagefault_info.virtual_address;
>>>> +            d->arch.hvm_domain.fault_info.errcode =
>>>> +                op->u.set_pagefault_info.errcode;
>>>> +            d->arch.hvm_domain.fault_info.valid = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> +            ret = 0;
>>>> +        }
>>>> +    }
>>>
>>> Pointless curly braces.
>>
>> You're right, of course, but I've written it like that because that
>> seems to be the style (even where it is not necessary / no local
>> variables are introduced) in
>> do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl).
>>
>> Should I break with the coding style for this switch case?
> 
> Neither do_domctl() nor x86's arch_do_domctl() really consistently
> do like you say. Hence I think rather than continuing the bad habit,
> making new additions do better is the right approach. (As to why
> I really think this isn't just a cosmetic thing: These braces usually
> get placed at the same indentation level as the containing switch
> statement's, breaking consistent indentation, potentially leading to
> two immediately successive closing braces at the same indentation
> level.)

I understand, thanks for the reply! I'll change the code.


Razvan Cojocaru