On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:10:41AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 15.01.19 at 16:49, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:27:41AM -0800, Christopher Clark wrote:
> >> +static int
> >> +pending_requeue(const struct domain *d, struct argo_ring_info *ring_info,
> >> + domid_t src_id, unsigned int len)
> >> +{
> >> + struct hlist_node *node;
> >> + struct pending_ent *ent;
> >> +
> >> + ASSERT(LOCKING_L3(d, ring_info));
> >> +
> >> + hlist_for_each_entry(ent, node, &ring_info->pending, node)
> >> + {
> >> + if ( ent->domain_id == src_id )
> >> + {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Reuse an existing queue entry for a notification rather
> >> than add
> >> + * another. If the existing entry is waiting for a smaller
> >> size than
> >> + * the current message then adjust the record to wait for the
> >> + * current (larger) size to be available before triggering a
> >> + * notification.
> >> + * This assists the waiting sender by ensuring that whenever a
> >> + * notification is triggered, there is sufficient space
> >> available
> >> + * for (at least) any one of the messages awaiting
> >> transmission.
> >> + */
> >> + if ( ent->len < len )
> >> + ent->len = len;
> >
> > Nit:
> >
> > ent->len = max(ent->len, len);
>
> I don't think use of max() should be a requirement in cases where
> one of the items compared is also the value to update. I'm not
> even convinced it helps readability of the sources, let alone the
> quality of generated code.
Then disregard the comment. It's likely I got used to this style and
find it easier to read.
Thanks, Roger.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
