> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: 17 September 2019 14:03 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Suravee Suthikulpanit > <[email protected]>; Andrew > Cooper <[email protected]>; George Dunlap <[email protected]>; > Roger Pau Monne > <[email protected]>; Jun Nakajima <[email protected]>; Kevin Tian > <[email protected]>; > BorisOstrovsky <[email protected]>; Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; Wei > Liu <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/HVM: move NOFLUSH handling out of > hvm_set_cr3() > > On 17.09.2019 14:45, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> From: Xen-devel <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jan > >> Beulich > >> Sent: 17 September 2019 07:15 > >> > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c > >> @@ -2080,6 +2080,8 @@ static int hvmemul_write_cr( > >> HVMTRACE_LONG_2D(CR_WRITE, reg, TRC_PAR_LONG(val)); > >> switch ( reg ) > >> { > >> + bool noflush; > >> + > > > > I said this before... I think the tighter case-scope is better. > > I recall you saying so, but I don't recall you actually making this a > requirement to get your ack. > > > Cosmetically it may look a little odd, but surely it gives the > > compiler a better chance to optimize? > > I don't think so - they're pretty good to limit the life range of > variables (at least in not overly hairy functions) these days. The > more narrow scopes we often ask for are more for the reader to > easily know what the intended usage range of a variable is.
Ok. I'm not going to insist, but I would still prefer case-scope here. Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
