On 26.09.2019 16:09, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:15 AM Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 25.09.2019 17:48, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >>> @@ -1879,12 +1879,11 @@ int hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(paddr_t gpa, unsigned >>> long gla, >>> if ( npfec.write_access && (p2mt == p2m_ram_shared) ) >>> { >>> ASSERT(p2m_is_hostp2m(p2m)); >>> - sharing_enomem = >>> - (mem_sharing_unshare_page(currd, gfn, 0) < 0); >>> + sharing_enomem = mem_sharing_unshare_page(currd, gfn, 0); >> >> I guess the implication here is that the function can only return >> -ENOMEM? Not very forward compatible, but well. However, if you >> touch this already, shouldn't you at least make "sharing_enomem" >> bool? > > Correct, there is a BUG_ON for every other rc value but ENOMEM. We > could turn it into a bool but I don't see a reason for it, perhaps > there will be another rc value in the future that we want to handle > gracefully.
At which point the variable's name will no longer be appropriate. Hence my request to make it bool; at such a future point the code would need touching again anyway if you (understandably) don't want to make more than purely cosmetic changes now. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
