On 20/12/23 12:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.12.2023 12:48, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/12/2023 11:03, Federico Serafini wrote:
--- 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).
While (it doesn't matter here) my view on this is different, I'm still
puzzled why the tool would complain / why a change here is necessary.
It is not _one_ return statement, but there's still (and obviously) no
way of falling through.
The tool is configurable:
if you prefer deviate these cases instead of refactoring the code
I can update the configuration.
But I have the feeling any other solution would probably be
worse.
Use the conditional operator?
Jan
So:
Acked-by: Julien Grall <[email protected]>
Cheers,
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
