On 10/26/21 11:44 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021, Qian Cai wrote:
>> It is less error-prone to use a different variable name from the existing
>> one in a wider scope. This is also flagged by GCC (W=2):
>>
>> ./include/linux/kvm_host.h: In function 'search_memslots':
>> ./include/linux/kvm_host.h:1246:7: warning: declaration of 'slot' shadows a previous local [-Wshadow]
>> 1246 | int slot = start + (end - start) / 2;
>> | ^~~~
>> ./include/linux/kvm_host.h:1240:26: note: shadowed declaration is here
>> 1240 | struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
>> | ^~~~
>>
>
> Even though this doesn't need to go to stable, probably worth adding a Fixes: to
> acknowledge that this was a recently introduced mess.
>
> Fixes: 0f22af940dc8 ("KVM: Move last_used_slot logic out of search_memslots")
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> index 60a35d9fe259..1c1a36f658fe 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -1243,12 +1243,12 @@ search_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots, gfn_t gfn, int *index)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> while (start < end) {
>> - int slot = start + (end - start) / 2;
>> + int new_slot = start + (end - start) / 2;
>
> new_slot isn't a great name, the integer "slot" isn't directly connected to the
> final memslot and may not be representative of the final memslot's index depending
> on how the binary search resolves.
>
> Maybe "pivot"? Or just "tmp"? I also vote to hoist the declaration out of the
> loop precisely to avoid potential shadows, and to also associate the variable
> with the "start" and "end" variables, e.g.
Yes, I like "pivot" and the rest of the feedback makes sense. I'll send
a v2 soon.
