On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 12:19:49 +0200, Jiri Denemark via Devel wrote:
> From: Jiri Denemark <jdene...@redhat.com>
>
> Refactor weight calculation to a separate virCPUx86WeightFeatures
> function to avoid code duplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdene...@redhat.com>
> ---
> src/cpu/cpu_x86.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c b/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c
> index 32aa01bc14..b0fe2bed4c 100644
> --- a/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c
> +++ b/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c
> @@ -2090,63 +2090,72 @@ virCPUx86Compare(virCPUDef *host,
> /* Base penalty for disabled features. */
> #define BASE_PENALTY 2
>
> +struct virCPUx86Weight {
> + size_t total;
> + size_t enabled;
> + size_t disabled;
> +};
> +
> +static void
> +virCPUx86WeightFeatures(const virCPUDef *cpu,
> + struct virCPUx86Weight *weight)
> +{
> + int penalty = BASE_PENALTY;
> + size_t i;
> +
> + weight->enabled = cpu->nfeatures;
> + weight->disabled = 0;
> +
> + if (cpu->type == VIR_CPU_TYPE_HOST) {
> + weight->total = cpu->nfeatures;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < weight->enabled; i++) {
> + if (cpu->features[i].policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_DISABLE) {
> + weight->enabled--;
I know that this is just moving code but the fact that you modify the
variable used to limit the iteration ought to be explained in a comment
because it's really non-obvious to a reader what's happening here.
> + weight->disabled += penalty;
> + penalty++;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + weight->total = weight->enabled + weight->disabled;
> +}
> +
> +
The new version is much more readable!
Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <pkre...@redhat.com>
