On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:26 AM Wang, Wei W <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:55 PM, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> > I don't get it. Why bothering the type if we just do this?
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h index
> > 4f26b244f6d0..10455253c6ea 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static inline void kvm_vm_bugged(struct kvm *kvm)
> >
> > #define KVM_BUG(cond, kvm, fmt...) \
> > ({ \
> > - int __ret = (cond); \
> > + int __ret = !!(cond); \
>
> This is essentially "bool __ret". No biggie to change it this way.
!! will return an int, not a boolean, but it is used as a boolean.
This is consistent with the original code which _is_ returning an
integer.
> But I'm inclined to retain the original intention to have the macro return
> the value that was passed in:
> typeof(cond) __ret = (cond);
hmm, I think it is appropriate to retain the original type of 'cond'
especially since it may also involve other arithmetic operations. But
I doubt it will be very useful. For instance, who is going to write
this code?
......
if (KVM_BUG(cond, true) & some_mask)
do_something()
......
>
> Let's what others vote for.
Please fix this bug first before introducing nice features.
Thanks.
-Mingwei
-Mingwei
