Hi Jan,
> On 15 Nov 2021, at 10:20, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 15.11.2021 11:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> On 11 Nov 2021, at 17:57, Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>>> @@ -1234,15 +1234,18 @@ int vcpu_unpause_by_systemcontroller(struct vcpu *v)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static void do_domain_pause(struct domain *d,
>>> - void (*sleep_fn)(struct vcpu *v))
>>> +static void _domain_pause(struct domain *d, bool sync /* or nosync */)
>>
>> Here you use comments inside the function definition.
>> I think this is something that should be avoided and in this specific case a
>> boolean sync is clear enough not to need to explain that false is nosing.
>
> While I agree the comment here isn't overly useful, I think ...
>
>>> @@ -1250,12 +1253,12 @@ static void do_domain_pause(struct domain *d,
>>> void domain_pause(struct domain *d)
>>> {
>>> ASSERT(d != current->domain);
>>> - do_domain_pause(d, vcpu_sleep_sync);
>>> + _domain_pause(d, true /* sync */);
>> Same here.
>
> ... comments like this one are pretty useful to disambiguate the plain
> "true" or "false" (without the reader needing to go look at the function
> declaration or definition).
I agree with that but the comment here is useful, it could be added before
the call instead of inside it.
Bertrand
>
> Jan
>
