From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [v8][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: disable all pci
 devices conflicting with rdm
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:32:25 +0100
Message-ID: <55A7CE890200007800091EC8@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1437029582-19564-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1437029582-19564-7-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<CAFLBxZZhDHi2XQ9UYkt6gfEiVMNRGxxer3zNptFGVsns2OYOfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55A79AFA.3040500@intel.com>
	<CAFLBxZY86xDsNKO9zHMouk+sEPuCcYaR_49TQ87zjXxtBPqKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55A7AFF4.1040909@intel.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: <55A7AFF4.1040909@intel.com>
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: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 16.07.15 at 15:21, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> I guess something like this,
> 
> 			...
>                          pci_writew(devfn, PCI_COMMAND, ~cmd);
>                          /* Jump next device. */
>                          goto check_next_device;
>                      }
>                  }
>              }
>          }
>   check_next_device:
>      }
> }

Except that this isn't valid C (no statement following the label). I can
accept goto-s for some error handling cases where the alternatives
might be considered even more ugly than using goto. But the way
this or your original proposal look, I'd rather not have goto-s used
like this.

Jan