On 10/14/24 04:31, Kai Huang wrote:
> +#define READ_SYS_INFO(_field_id, _member) \
> + ret = ret ?: read_sys_metadata_field16(MD_FIELD_ID_##_field_id, \
> + &sysinfo_tdmr->_member)
>
> - return 0;
> + READ_SYS_INFO(MAX_TDMRS, max_tdmrs);
> + READ_SYS_INFO(MAX_RESERVED_PER_TDMR, max_reserved_per_tdmr);
> + READ_SYS_INFO(PAMT_4K_ENTRY_SIZE, pamt_entry_size[TDX_PS_4K]);
> + READ_SYS_INFO(PAMT_2M_ENTRY_SIZE, pamt_entry_size[TDX_PS_2M]);
> + READ_SYS_INFO(PAMT_1G_ENTRY_SIZE, pamt_entry_size[TDX_PS_1G]);
I know what Dan asked for here, but I dislike how this ended up.
The existing stuff *has* type safety, despite the void*. It at least
checks the size, which is the biggest problem.
Also, this isn't really an unrolled loop. It still effectively has
gotos, just like the for loop did. It just buries the goto in the "ret
= ret ?: " construct. It hides the control flow logic.
Logically, this whole function is
ret = read_something1();
if (ret)
goto out;
ret = read_something2();
if (ret)
goto out;
...
I'd *much* rather have that goto be:
for () {
ret = read_something();
if (ret)
break; // aka. goto out
}
Than have something *look* like straight control flow when it isn't.
