From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751391AbdBXTIB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:08:01 -0500
Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:49850 "EHLO mga07.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751275AbdBXTHm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:07:42 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,201,1484035200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="937798857"
Message-ID: <1487963247.115017.10.camel@ranerica-desktop>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/17] x86/mpx: Do not use SIB index if index points
 to R/ESP
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To: Nathan Howard <liverlint@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>,
        Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@intel.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>, wine-devel@winehq.org,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, x86@kernel.org,
        Liang Z Li <liang.z.li@intel.com>, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:07:27 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CADRb1HZSxmt69V7MEUGMNUHqmfFbOMGVZPp+qLfwAu17KNRh=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170223063706.71554-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
         <20170223063706.71554-2-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
         <20170223072432.GX6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <1487888232.115017.4.camel@ranerica-desktop>
         <1487903602.14159.50.camel@perches.com>
         <CADRb1HZSxmt69V7MEUGMNUHqmfFbOMGVZPp+qLfwAu17KNRh=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 09:47 -0500, Nathan Howard wrote:
>         Also, this code would read better with the inner test
>         reversed or done first
>         
>                         if (indx_offset < 0) {
>                                 if (indx_offset != -EDOM)
>                                         goto out_err;
>                                 indx = 0;
>                         } else {
>                                 indx = regs_get_register(etc...)
>                         }
>         
>         or
>                         if (indx_offset == -EDOM)
>                                 indx = 0;
>                         else if (indx_offset < 0)
>                                 goto err;
> 
> 
> Or goto out_err;
> 
> 
>                         else
>                                 indx = regs_get_register(etc...)
>         
>         The compiler should generate the same code in any
>         case, but either could improve reader understanding.
> 
> 
> Also, it may be a tweak more efficient to handle the most likely
> runtime case in the conditional stack first (whichever that may be).

The most likely case will be a positive value but I need to check for
negatives first :( I could wrap the first conditional in an "unlikely".

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo