On 18.02.2025 00:12, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.02.2025 03:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> @@ -3797,22 +3797,14 @@ uint64_t hvm_get_reg(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int
>>> reg)
>>> {
>>> ASSERT(v == current || !vcpu_runnable(v));
>>>
>>> - switch ( reg )
>>> - {
>>> - default:
>>> - return alternative_call(hvm_funcs.get_reg, v, reg);
>>> - }
>>> + return alternative_call(hvm_funcs.get_reg, v, reg);
>>> }
>>>
>>> void hvm_set_reg(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int reg, uint64_t val)
>>> {
>>> ASSERT(v == current || !vcpu_runnable(v));
>>>
>>> - switch ( reg )
>>> - {
>>> - default:
>>> - return alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.set_reg, v, reg, val);
>>> - }
>>> + return alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.set_reg, v, reg, val);
>>> }
>>
>> Both of these were, iirc, deliberately written using switch(), to ease
>> possible future changes.
>
> To be honest, I do not see any value in the way they are currently
> written. However, if you prefer, I can add a deviation for this, with
> one SAF comment for each of these two. The reason for the deviation
> would be "deliberate to ease possible future change". Please let me know
> how you would like to proceed.
Well, best next thing you can do is seek input from the person who has
written that code, i.e. Andrew.
Jan
