On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 17:16 +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> > > > for (i = 0; i < nAddrNodes; i++) {
> > > > - virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
> > > > + virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
> > >
> > > Honestly, I have no idea what preferences we have for such
> > > initializations, but I for one prefer initialization to '{0}' which
> > > guarantees everything to be zeroed anyway. And will be readable the
> > > same way even when we change the structure. Would that work for you as
> > > well?
> >
> > I think it should either be 0 (as the structure member is
> > defined as int) or VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT (as it is used
> > as virTristateSwitch, according to the comment and other bits
> > of code). false definitely seems out of place.
>
> Actually this fix was about aligning three code occurrences.
> These three initialisations can be found here:
>
> qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> 1099: virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
>
> conf/node_device_conf.c
> 1166: virPCIDeviceAddress addr = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
>
> conf/domain_addr.c
> 572: virPCIDeviceAddress a = { 0, 0, 0, 0, false };
>
> Setting the VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT make sense from the data type
> point of view. Looking at it from the code readability point of view you
> would have to know that the default of the multifunction is Off and with
> that in mind it made more sense setting it to false.
The default is not OFF, though, it's ABSENT :)
In fact, as far as I can tell, OFF isn't ever used explicitly
either for assignment or comparison. And false is plain wrong
from a datatype point of view.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list