On 08/19/2010 09:34 AM, Gianni Tedesco wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 17:10 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 08/19/2010 03:54 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 11:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 11:37 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>> if (r && !(r == XEN_PLATFORM_ERR_MAGIC &&
>>>>>>> + (xen_emul_unplug != -1) &&
>>>>>>> (xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE)))
>>>>>> I wouldn't add xen_emul_unplug != -1 because it should be clear that
>>>>>> xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE always implies xen_emul_unplug != -1.
>>>>> That's not correct since -1 is all 1s. So you can get a false positive
>>>>> for "xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE" if xen_emul_unplug == -1.
>>>> IOW if we were to rewrite the test to use less boolean logic the patch
>>>> might look like:
>>>>
>>>> if (r) {
>>>> if (r != XEN_PLATFORM_ERR_MAGIC)
>>>> return;
>>>> + if (xen_emul_unplug == -1)
>>>> + return;
>>>> if (!(xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE))
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this refactoring is worthwhile in any case? It certainly makes
>>>> my head hurt less ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, it is probably worth it anyway :)
>> Treating a variable as an integer and a bitfield seems like a bad idea.
> Should be fine? I'd just #define XEN_UNPLUG_ALL_THE_BITS ~0U for the
> sake of cosmetics...
In a bitfield the bits are typically independent, whereas in an integer
you interpret all the bits to get a value. Making "all bits set" mean
something other than all the bitfield bits are set is just asking for
something bad to happen to you.
Why not define a bit to mean whatever "-1" currently means?
J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home