Hi Federico, On 20/12/2023 11:03, Federico Serafini wrote:
Refactor of the switch-clauses to have a return statement at the end. This satisfies the requirements to deviate Rule 16.3 ("An unconditional `break' statement shall terminate every switch-clause). No functional change.Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <[email protected]> --- xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c | 4 ++-- xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c index b5d54c569b..247f08ad8d 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c @@ -210,8 +210,8 @@ void do_sysreg(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, /* RO at EL0. RAZ/WI at EL1 */ if ( regs_mode_is_user(regs) ) return handle_ro_raz(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 0); - else - return handle_raz_wi(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 1); + + return handle_raz_wi(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 1);
I don't 100% like this change (mostly because I find if/else clearer here). But I have the feeling any other solution would probably be worse. So:
Acked-by: Julien Grall <[email protected]> Cheers, -- Julien Grall
