On 15.11.2021 11:23, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> 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.
Except the form Andrew has used is the one we've been using elsewhere
for some time.
Jan
