From: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kai.huang@intel.com" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
"robert.hu@linux.intel.com" <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] KVM: x86: Consolidate flags for __linearize()
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 09:35:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bbb3e5ac-1b51-abdf-c7ce-372af548f26b@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ccf245b17d7140099ad89628635a04ef@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On 5/11/2023 5:58 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Binbin Wu
>> Sent: 11 May 2023 02:26
> ...
>>>> unsigned max_size;
>>>> - return __linearize(ctxt, addr, &max_size, size, write, false,
>>>> + u32 flags = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (write)
>>>> + flags |= X86EMUL_F_WRITE;
>>> this can be more dense:
>>>
>>> u32 flags = write ? X86EMUL_F_WRITE : 0;
>> Thanks, will update it.
> You can also dispense with the extra local variable and
> put the ?: into the parameter list.
>
> Even more so with the other calls sites.
Thanks, I will check whether they are better to be put in the parameter
list directly instead of using a local variable.
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-12 1:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-10 6:06 [PATCH v8 0/6] Linear Address Masking (LAM) KVM Enabling Binbin Wu
2023-05-10 6:06 ` [PATCH v8 1/6] KVM: x86: Consolidate flags for __linearize() Binbin Wu
2023-05-10 7:42 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-11 1:25 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-11 9:58 ` David Laight
2023-05-12 1:35 ` Binbin Wu [this message]
2023-05-10 12:41 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-11 1:30 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-10 6:06 ` [PATCH v8 2/6] KVM: x86: Virtualize CR4.LAM_SUP Binbin Wu
2023-05-11 12:50 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-12 1:33 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-12 10:49 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-18 4:01 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-10 6:06 ` [PATCH v8 3/6] KVM: x86: Virtualize CR3.LAM_{U48,U57} Binbin Wu
2023-05-10 8:58 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-11 1:27 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-10 11:59 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-10 6:06 ` [PATCH v8 4/6] KVM: x86: Introduce untag_addr() in kvm_x86_ops Binbin Wu
2023-05-11 6:03 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-11 9:18 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-11 10:37 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-10 6:06 ` [PATCH v8 5/6] KVM: x86: Untag address when LAM applicable Binbin Wu
2023-05-11 6:28 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-10 6:06 ` [PATCH v8 6/6] KVM: x86: Expose LAM feature to userspace VMM Binbin Wu
2023-05-12 12:49 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-16 3:30 ` Binbin Wu
2023-05-25 2:08 ` [PATCH v8 0/6] Linear Address Masking (LAM) KVM Enabling Binbin Wu
2023-05-25 15:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-06-06 9:26 ` Binbin Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bbb3e5ac-1b51-abdf-c7ce-372af548f26b@linux.intel.com \
--to=binbin.wu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robert.hu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox