"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:58:15PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: >> >> >> we have: >> >> >> >> if (msix_is_masked()) >> >> return 0 >> >> r = msix_mask_notifier(....., !msix_is_masked()); >> >> >> >> i.e. at that point msix_is_masked() is false, or we really, really needs >> >> locking. >> >> >> >> Puttting a !foo, when we know that it needs to be an 1 looks strange. >> >> >> >> Later, Juan. >> >> >> >> PD. Yes, I already asked in a previous version to just have two >> >> methods, mask/unmask. we now at call time which one we need. >> > >> > >> > I find msix_is_masked clearer here than true since you don't need >> > to look up definition to understand what this 'true' stands for. >> > The value is clear from code above. What do you think? >> >> I preffer the change, but it is up to you. >> >> at that point, we are using !msix_masked() to mean "true" >> >> i.e. we know that msix_masked() is false. What you want to do is "mask". >> >> Later, Juan. > > Right. I guess I'll keep it as is, when I look at it with a fresh mind > next time, I'll clean it all up. ok with me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
