On 21.08.2025 22:49, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 19/08/2025 2:09 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.08.2025 22:41, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>> @@ -2733,8 +2733,8 @@ static uint64_t cf_check vmx_get_reg(struct vcpu *v, >>> unsigned int reg) >>> case MSR_SHADOW_GS_BASE: >>> if ( v != curr ) >>> return v->arch.hvm.vmx.shadow_gs; >>> - rdmsrl(MSR_SHADOW_GS_BASE, val); >>> - return val; >>> + else >>> + return rdmsr(MSR_SHADOW_GS_BASE); >>> } >> Here and below, can we please do without the pointless "else"? Strictly >> speaking in Misra's terms that's "dead code" (things working identically >> without), and I'm quite happy that I can now use this argument to >> support my personal antipathy to this style of coding. Or else use the >> conditional operator in such cases (where applicable). > > No. I have always, and will always prioritise readability first and > foremost.
But my preference is precisely because of readability. The excess "else" gives a wrong impression to the reader, when not looking closely enough. (And I [now] expect you might say the opposite.) > I do not agree with your interpretation of MISRA in this case. Something to discuss in a broader group then, I suppose. Jan
