On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:36:33AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This routine is a one-liner and doesn't really need to be function and
> should be rather implemented as a macro.
>
> Suggested-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V1->V2:
> - The previous implementation was fixing a compilation error that
> occurred only with old compilers (from 2015) due to a bug in the
> compiler itself.
>
> - Dave suggested to rather implement this as a macro which made more
> sense.
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 8 +-------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> index 3ae2f82fca46..a429ed36a6a0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> @@ -207,13 +207,7 @@ static int set_core_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
>
> #define vq_word(vq) (((vq) - SVE_VQ_MIN) / 64)
> #define vq_mask(vq) ((u64)1 << ((vq) - SVE_VQ_MIN) % 64)
> -
> -static bool vq_present(
> - const u64 (*const vqs)[KVM_ARM64_SVE_VLS_WORDS],
> - unsigned int vq)
> -{
> - return (*vqs)[vq_word(vq)] & vq_mask(vq);
> -}
> +#define vq_present(vqs, vq) ((*(vqs))[vq_word(vq)] & vq_mask(vq))
You could drop the extra level of indirection on vqs now. The only
thing it achieves is to enforce the size of the array via type-
checkout, but the macro can't easily do that (unless you can think
of another way to do it).
Otherwise, looks good.
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
