Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] x86/nmi: Corrections and improvements to do_nmi_stats()

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] x86/nmi: Corrections and improvements to do_nmi_stats()
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:07:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <16314a6e-b005-03bf-cffa-432d91701204@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200217111740.7298-2-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

On 17.02.2020 12:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
> @@ -587,25 +587,25 @@ static void do_nmi_trigger(unsigned char key)
>  
>  static void do_nmi_stats(unsigned char key)
>  {
> -    int i;
> -    struct domain *d;
> -    struct vcpu *v;
> +    const struct vcpu *v;
> +    unsigned int cpu;
> +    bool pend, mask;
>  
>      printk("CPU\tNMI\n");
> -    for_each_online_cpu ( i )
> -        printk("%3d\t%3d\n", i, nmi_count(i));
> +    for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
> +        printk("%3d\t%3d\n", cpu, nmi_count(cpu));

%3u twice then please. With this
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
but I have one more remark:

> -    if ( ((d = hardware_domain) == NULL) || (d->vcpu == NULL) ||
> -         ((v = d->vcpu[0]) == NULL) )
> +    if ( !hardware_domain || !hardware_domain->vcpu ||
> +         !(v = hardware_domain->vcpu[0]) )

Perhaps, just for readability and consistency, use domain_vcpu()
here?

Jan

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