On 01/19/2016 06:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/2016 05:51, John Snow wrote:
>> + /* Only RESET is allowed to an ATAPI device while BSY and/or DRQ are
>> set. */
>> + if (s->status & (BUSY_STAT|DRQ_STAT)) {
>> + if (!(val == WIN_DEVICE_RESET) && (s->drive_kind == IDE_CD)) {
>
> I was going to complain about Pascal-ish parentheses, but actually I
> think there is a bug here; the expression just looks weird.
>
> Did you mean
>
> if (!(val == WIN_DEVICE_RESET && s->drive_kind == IDE_CD))
>
> or equivalently applying de Morgan's law:
>
> if (s->drive_kind != IDE_CD || val != WIN_DEVICE_RESET)
>
> ?
>
> Paolo
>
>> + return;
>
ugh, yes, I typo'd. Thank you.
If you're still up, which do you find more readable?
The (!(A && B)) form or the (!A || !B) form?
