On 17.09.21 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.09.2021 03:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>> On 9/16/21 11:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>   {
>>>   	const struct desc_ptr *desc = this_cpu_ptr(&idt_desc);
>>> +	unsigned i, count = (desc->size + 1) / sizeof(gate_desc);
>>>   
>>> -	xen_convert_trap_info(desc, traps);
>>
>>
>> Can you instead add a boolean parameter to xen_convert_trap_info() to indicate whether to skip empty entries? That will avoid (almost) duplicating the code.
> 
> I can, sure, but I specifically didn't, as the result is going to be less
> readable imo. Instead I was considering to fold xen_convert_trap_info()
> into its only remaining caller. Yet if you're convinced adding the
> parameter is the way to do, I will go that route. But please confirm.

I don't think the result will be very hard to read. All you need is the
new parameter and extending the if statement in xen_convert_trap_info()
to increment out always if no entry is to be skipped.


Juergen