> initialize directly when defining it? > > > Since the function might exit before range is initialized, I don't see > a reason to do it on definion. Cleaner and we don't optimize for error paths. > > > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < bus->dev_count; i++) > > + if (kvm_io_bus_cmp(&bus->range[i], &range) > 0) > > + break; > > + > > + memcpy(new_bus, bus, sizeof(*bus) + i * sizeof(struct kvm_io_range)); > > + new_bus->dev_count++; > > + new_bus->range[i] = range; > > + memcpy(new_bus->range + i + 1, bus->range + i, > > + (bus->dev_count - i) * sizeof(struct kvm_io_range)); > > These offset/size/length calculations are just ugly. Wonder if that can > be written any nicer. > > > I really don't know how to response to that. It might be ugly but it > has a lovely personality? > > This is a standard and common pointer arithmetic, but feel free to > propose another way to implement it. Will think about it ... But yes, it has personality :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
