On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:58:15PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > > >> we have: > >> > >> if (msix_is_masked()) > >> return 0 > >> r = msix_mask_notifier(....., !msix_is_masked()); > >> > >> i.e. at that point msix_is_masked() is false, or we really, really needs > >> locking. > >> > >> Puttting a !foo, when we know that it needs to be an 1 looks strange. > >> > >> Later, Juan. > >> > >> PD. Yes, I already asked in a previous version to just have two > >> methods, mask/unmask. we now at call time which one we need. > > > > > > I find msix_is_masked clearer here than true since you don't need > > to look up definition to understand what this 'true' stands for. > > The value is clear from code above. What do you think? > > I preffer the change, but it is up to you. > > at that point, we are using !msix_masked() to mean "true" > > i.e. we know that msix_masked() is false. What you want to do is "mask". > > Later, Juan.
Right. I guess I'll keep it as is, when I look at it with a fresh mind next time, I'll clean it all up. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
