At 2022-09-16 16:46:36, "Andy Shevchenko" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:09 AM Liang He <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 2022-09-16 13:38:39, "Andy Shevchenko" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 5:02 AM Liang He <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> At 2022-09-16 07:29:06, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On 9/14/22 7:23 PM, Liang He wrote:
>
>...
>
>> >> >> static inline bool jailhouse_paravirt(void)
>> >> >> {
>> >> >> - return of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "jailhouse,cell");
>> >> >> + struct device_node *np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
>> >> >> "jailhouse,cell");
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + of_node_put(np);
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + return np;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you for the fix, but returning a pointer from a function with a
>> >> >bool return type looks odd. Can we also fix that up please?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your review, how about following patch:
>> >>
>> >> - return of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "jailhouse,cell");
>> >> + struct device_node *np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
>> >> "jailhouse,cell");
>> >> +
>> >> + of_node_put(np);
>> >> +
>> >> + return (np==NULL);
>>
>> >This will be opposite to the above. Perhaps you wanted
>>
>> Sorry, I wanted to use 'np!=NULL'
>>
>> > return !!np;
>> >
>> >Also possible (but why?)
>> >
>> > return np ? true : false;
>>
>> So, can I chose 'return np?true: false;' as the final patch?
>
>Of course you can, it's up to the maintainer(s) what to accept.
>
>--
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko
Thanks, I will do it now.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Jailhouse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jailhouse-dev/480230.5e6f.183457cfc63.Coremail.windhl%40126.com.
