On 10/10/2017 01:39 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:28:35 +0200
> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09.10.2017 17:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2017 01:07 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
>>>> Then, in the follow up patches, you do something like this:
>>>>
>>>> return (IOInstEnding){.cc = 0};
>>>>
>>>> ... and that just looks very, very ugly in my eyes. The more I look at
>>>
>>> Interesting, I found this quite expressive.
>>
>> C'mon, we're writing C code, not Java ;-)
>
> Every time I read that construct, I die a little bit inside...
>
>> Well, you already gave a description in your comment in the struct
>> IOInstEnding, so maybe something similar? Or maybe this could even be
>> merged with the definitions for the SIGP status codes:
>>
>> #define SIGP_CC_ORDER_CODE_ACCEPTED 0
>> #define SIGP_CC_STATUS_STORED 1
>> #define SIGP_CC_BUSY 2
>> #define SIGP_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL 3
>
> I'd rather not reuse the definitions for a different instruction, even
> if they are similar in semantics.
>
>>> Sorry, I may be a bit to persistent on this one: I don't think it's
>>> a huge difference, but I don't feel great about changing something to
>>> what I think is (slightly) worse without being first convinced that
>>> I was wrong.
>>
>> In the end, the code has to be accepted by the maintainers, so let's
>> leave the decision up to them whether they like this typedef struct
>> IOInstEnding or not...
>
> Here's a strong 'do not like' from me... using an enum or define is
> fine with me.
>
Got the message. Could we first reach an agreement on the rest of the
series? As I've said, I might need to go back to indicating exceptions
too (depending on how do we like #3), and that would mean a changed
situation. If the price for getting this in is sacrificing my strongly
type checked condition code type I can live with that.
Halil
t
