On 09.09.2019 14:15, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.09.2019 13:03, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >> >> >> On 09.09.2019 13:49, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 09.09.2019 12:01, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>> On 06.09.2019 18:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 03.09.2019 16:01, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>>>> } >>>>>> + /* Check if eny vm_event was sent */ >>>>> >>>>> "any" and please add blank line ahead of your addition. >>>> >>>> I will correct this. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> + if ( err ) >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>> >>>>> And wait - why does this sit after the loop? Is that a re-basing >>>>> mistake from when you had put on top of my uncommitted patch? >>>> >>>> This is done to skip the mapping part down the line. If there is an >>>> error then we have to return _it_ and not the mapping. >>> >>> But after re-basing you could (and hence imo should) "goto out" >>> right from the code blob you add to the loop. Which would then >>> also eliminate the need for other "err" related adjustments you >>> make. >>> >> >> So you want me to have this patch base on your (x86/HVM: correct >> hvmemul_map_linear_addr() for multi-page case) patch. > > No, explicitly not. The "re-basing" I used above was referring to > you have moved away from basing your patch on mine. >
Ok, I misunderstood, thanks for the explanation, I will have the patch modified as I posted. Thanks for the review, Alex _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
