Haiwei Li <lihaiwei.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From 4e19436679a97e3cee73b4ae613ff91580c721d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:51:03 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] Adding 'else' to reduce checking. > > These two conditions are in conflict, adding 'else' to reduce checking. > > Signed-off-by: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c > index 679692b..ef5802f 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c > @@ -1573,7 +1573,7 @@ static void > kvm_apic_inject_pending_timer_irqs(struct kvm_lapic *apic) > kvm_apic_local_deliver(apic, APIC_LVTT); > if (apic_lvtt_tscdeadline(apic)) > ktimer->tscdeadline = 0; > - if (apic_lvtt_oneshot(apic)) { > + else if (apic_lvtt_oneshot(apic)) { > ktimer->tscdeadline = 0; > ktimer->target_expiration = 0; > } I bet the compiler will generate the exact same code (apic_lvtt_tscdeadline() and apic_lvtt_oneshot() are inlines), however, I think your patch is still worthy: 'else' makes it obvious it's either one or another and not both. One nitpick: coding style requires braces even for single statements in case other branches require them so in your case it should now be: if (apic_lvtt_tscdeadline(apic)) { ktimer->tscdeadline = 0; } else if (apic_lvtt_oneshot(apic)) { ktimer->tscdeadline = 0; ktimer->target_expiration = 0; } With that, Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Vitaly