For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
+++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
@@ -905,8 +905,8 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
         goto fail;
 
     for ( i = 0; i < (test->scale == SC_vl ? vsz : esz); ++i )
-         if ( accessed[i] )
-             goto fail;
+        if ( accessed[i] )
+            goto fail;
 
     n = test->scale == SC_vl ? vsz : esz;
     if ( !sg )
@@ -917,13 +917,13 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
         ++n;
 
     for ( ; i < n; ++i )
-         if ( accessed[i] != (sg ? (vsz / esz) >> (test->opc & 1 & !evex.w)
-                                 : 1) )
-             goto fail;
+        if ( accessed[i] != (sg ? (vsz / esz) >> (test->opc & 1 & !evex.w)
+                                : 1) )
+            goto fail;
 
     for ( ; i < ARRAY_SIZE(accessed); ++i )
-         if ( accessed[i] )
-             goto fail;
+        if ( accessed[i] )
+            goto fail;
 
     /* Also check the broadcast case, if available. */
     if ( test->vsz >= VSZ_el || test->scale != SC_vl )
@@ -954,14 +954,14 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
         goto fail;
 
     for ( i = 0; i < esz; ++i )
-         if ( accessed[i] )
-             goto fail;
+        if ( accessed[i] )
+            goto fail;
     for ( ; i < esz * 2; ++i )
-         if ( accessed[i] != 1 )
-             goto fail;
+        if ( accessed[i] != 1 )
+            goto fail;
     for ( ; i < ARRAY_SIZE(accessed); ++i )
-         if ( accessed[i] )
-             goto fail;
+        if ( accessed[i] )
+            goto fail;
 
     return;

On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:45 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

  Reviewed-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>

We should really give another push to the clang-format effort. This whole class
of mistakes would be a thing of the past.

Cheers,
Alejandro

On 16.10.2024 12:06, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:45 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> 
>   Reviewed-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>

Thanks.

> We should really give another push to the clang-format effort. This whole class
> of mistakes would be a thing of the past.

For issues like the one here it would depend on whether that would also be
applied to (parts of) tool stack code. The plans, iirc, were mainly to cover
the xen/ subtree.

Jan

On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 11:15 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.10.2024 12:06, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:45 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > 
> >   Reviewed-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
>
> Thanks.
>
> > We should really give another push to the clang-format effort. This whole class
> > of mistakes would be a thing of the past.
>
> For issues like the one here it would depend on whether that would also be
> applied to (parts of) tool stack code. The plans, iirc, were mainly to cover
> the xen/ subtree.
>
> Jan

True, but AIUI that was merely an act of scope reduction for the sake of
getting something merged in a finite time frame. In an ideal world the whole
codebase would be covered, and I think this was a shared sentiment among those
in favour.

Cheers,
Alejandro