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 14:54:37 +0300
Message-ID: <53FDC6FD.4040209@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>
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: <53FCB226020000780002DA7B@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 08/26/2014 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?


Thanks,
Razvan Cojocaru