Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 09/15/2011 01:29 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> > d->mb_cur_max = MBS_SUPPORT ? MB_CUR_MAX : 1 >> That's tempting, but not needed. >> MB_CUR_MAX is already defined appropriately, so what's there is fine: >> >> d->mb_cur_max = MB_CUR_MAX; >> > > Yes, I'm suggesting to drop the "appropriate definition" (patch 22) > for now. It was too clever for me to grasp it, so I need separate > convincing. :)
Sorry, it's precisely to avoid the added conditionals like the one in your proposed alternative that I want to be guaranteed MB_CUR_MAX is always defined.
