On 09/05/2018 08:09 AM, John Snow wrote:
On 09/05/2018 06:43 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2018-09-04 19:09, John Snow wrote:
For purposes of minimum code movement, refactor the mirror_exit
callback to use the post-finalization callbacks in a trivial way.
Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
---
block/mirror.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
(Although I believe the ?: hunk from the previous patch should be here.
Also note that we have a couple of places that make use of the GNU
extension for "?:" as a binary operator (as in "x ?: y" returns x if
x != 0). Just in case you find "s->to_replace ?: src" as appealing as I
do.)
Ah, I wasn't sure that was OK to use. Meh, since I goofed up the last
patch I'll use that version.
My minor reason for liking 'a ?: b' - it's less typing, and makes
avoiding long lines easier. My major reason for liking it: 'a() ?: b'
only evaluates a() once, unlike 'a() ? a() : b' when taking the true
branch, which can be particularly important if a() has side effects, but
is still an efficiency issue even when side effects are not in play.
Yes, you can always rewrite things to use a temporary variable to avoid
the ?: operator (which in turn can inflate a single-line expression into
multiple lines), but there are indeed enough places in the code base
where we rely on this extension that it doesn't hurt to add more uses.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
