|
On 8/10/2016 11:34 PM, Andrea Bolognani
wrote:
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
How about we change all three occurrences as boris list above into
VIR_TRISTATE_SWITCH_ABSENT.
Xian Han
|