Re: [PATCH RFC V7 4/5] xen, libxc: Request page fault injection via libxc

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>]

On 08/27/2014 03:10 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 27.08.14 at 13:54, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Neither do_domctl() nor x86's arch_do_domctl() really consistently
> do like you say. Hence I think rather than continuing the bad habit,
> making new additions do better is the right approach. (As to why
> I really think this isn't just a cosmetic thing: These braces usually
> get placed at the same indentation level as the containing switch
> statement's, breaking consistent indentation, potentially leading to
> two immediately successive closing braces at the same indentation
> level.)

I understand, thanks for the reply! I'll change the code.


Razvan Cojocaru