[PATCH 2/2] target/riscv: Optimize ambiguous local variable in pmp_hart_has_privs

[PATCH 2/2] target/riscv: Optimize ambiguous local variable in pmp_hart_has_privs

[Ruibo Lu]

These two values represents whether start/end address is in pmp_range.
However, the type and name of them is ambiguous. This commit change the
name and type of them to improve code readability and accuracy.

Signed-off-by: Ruibo Lu <reaperlu@hust.edu.cn>
---
 target/riscv/pmp.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/riscv/pmp.c b/target/riscv/pmp.c
index 1a9279ba88..aa573bab14 100644
--- a/target/riscv/pmp.c
+++ b/target/riscv/pmp.c
@@ -203,16 +203,16 @@ void pmp_update_rule_nums(CPURISCVState *env)
     }
 }
 
-static int pmp_is_in_range(CPURISCVState *env, int pmp_index,
+static bool pmp_is_in_range(CPURISCVState *env, int pmp_index,
                            target_ulong addr)
 {
-    int result = 0;
+    int result = false;
 
     if ((addr >= env->pmp_state.addr[pmp_index].sa) &&
         (addr <= env->pmp_state.addr[pmp_index].ea)) {
-        result = 1;
+        result = true;
     } else {
-        result = 0;
+        result = false;
     }
 
     return result;
@@ -287,8 +287,8 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong addr,
 {
     int i = 0;
     int pmp_size = 0;
-    target_ulong s = 0;
-    target_ulong e = 0;
+    bool sa_in = 0;
+    bool ea_in = 0;
 
     /* Short cut if no rules */
     if (0 == pmp_get_num_rules(env)) {
@@ -314,11 +314,11 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong addr,
      * from low to high
      */
     for (i = 0; i < MAX_RISCV_PMPS; i++) {
-        s = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr);
-        e = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr + pmp_size - 1);
+        sa_in = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr);
+        ea_in = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr + pmp_size - 1);
 
         /* partially inside */
-        if ((s + e) == 1) {
+        if (sa_in ^ ea_in) {
             qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
                           "pmp violation - access is partially inside\n");
             *allowed_privs = 0;
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong addr,
             (env->pmp_state.pmp[i].cfg_reg & PMP_WRITE) |
             ((env->pmp_state.pmp[i].cfg_reg & PMP_EXEC) >> 2);
 
-        if (((s + e) == 2) && (PMP_AMATCH_OFF != a_field)) {
+        if ((sa_in & ea_in) && (PMP_AMATCH_OFF != a_field)) {
             /*
              * If the PMP entry is not off and the address is in range,
              * do the priv check
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] target/riscv: Optimize ambiguous local variable in pmp_hart_has_privs

[Weiwei Li]

On 2023/6/28 18:38, Ruibo Lu wrote:
> These two values represents whether start/end address is in pmp_range.
> However, the type and name of them is ambiguous. This commit change the
> name and type of them to improve code readability and accuracy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ruibo Lu <reaperlu@hust.edu.cn>
> ---
>   target/riscv/pmp.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/riscv/pmp.c b/target/riscv/pmp.c
> index 1a9279ba88..aa573bab14 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/pmp.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/pmp.c
> @@ -203,16 +203,16 @@ void pmp_update_rule_nums(CPURISCVState *env)
>       }
>   }
>   
> -static int pmp_is_in_range(CPURISCVState *env, int pmp_index,
> +static bool pmp_is_in_range(CPURISCVState *env, int pmp_index,
>                              target_ulong addr)
Maintain the alignment here.
>   {
> -    int result = 0;
> +    int result = false;
>   
>       if ((addr >= env->pmp_state.addr[pmp_index].sa) &&
>           (addr <= env->pmp_state.addr[pmp_index].ea)) {
> -        result = 1;
> +        result = true;
>       } else {
> -        result = 0;
> +        result = false;
>       }
>   
>       return result;
> @@ -287,8 +287,8 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong addr,
>   {
>       int i = 0;
>       int pmp_size = 0;
> -    target_ulong s = 0;
> -    target_ulong e = 0;
> +    bool sa_in = 0;
> +    bool ea_in = 0;
Better to use false here.
>   
>       /* Short cut if no rules */
>       if (0 == pmp_get_num_rules(env)) {
> @@ -314,11 +314,11 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong addr,
>        * from low to high
>        */
>       for (i = 0; i < MAX_RISCV_PMPS; i++) {
> -        s = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr);
> -        e = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr + pmp_size - 1);
> +        sa_in = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr);
> +        ea_in = pmp_is_in_range(env, i, addr + pmp_size - 1);
>   
>           /* partially inside */
> -        if ((s + e) == 1) {
> +        if (sa_in ^ ea_in) {
>               qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
>                             "pmp violation - access is partially inside\n");
>               *allowed_privs = 0;
> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong addr,
>               (env->pmp_state.pmp[i].cfg_reg & PMP_WRITE) |
>               ((env->pmp_state.pmp[i].cfg_reg & PMP_EXEC) >> 2);
>   
> -        if (((s + e) == 2) && (PMP_AMATCH_OFF != a_field)) {
> +        if ((sa_in & ea_in) && (PMP_AMATCH_OFF != a_field)) {

I think it's better to use "sa_in && ea_in &&(...)" here.

Regards,

Weiwei Li

>               /*
>                * If the PMP entry is not off and the address is in range,
>                * do the priv check