On 4/27/22 13:14, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:06:09 +0200
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Improve readability by making the return value of tprot() an enum.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
>
> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> but see nit below
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 11 +++++++++--
>> lib/s390x/sclp.c | 6 +++---
>> s390x/tprot.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
[...]
>> diff --git a/s390x/tprot.c b/s390x/tprot.c
>> index 460a0db7..8eb91c18 100644
>> --- a/s390x/tprot.c
>> +++ b/s390x/tprot.c
>> @@ -20,26 +20,26 @@ static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE)));
>>
>> static void test_tprot_rw(void)
>> {
>> - int cc;
>> + enum tprot_permission permission;
>>
>> report_prefix_push("Page read/writeable");
>>
>> - cc = tprot((unsigned long)pagebuf, 0);
>> - report(cc == 0, "CC = 0");
>> + permission = tprot((unsigned long)pagebuf, 0);
>> + report(permission == TPROT_READ_WRITE, "CC = 0");
>
> here and in all similar cases below: does it still make sense to have
> "CC = 0" as message at this point? Maybe a more descriptive one would
> be better
I thought about it, but decided against it. Firstly, because I preferred
not to do any functional changes and secondly, I could not think of anything
better. The prefix already tells you the meaning of the cc, so I don't know
what to print that would not be redundant.
[...]
