On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:04:52 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> [...]
fair enough
