On 06/08/2021 16.13, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, Aug 06 2021, David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06.08.21 11:42, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 05/08/2021 17.28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
-static void qemu_s390_skeys_init(Object *obj)
+static int qemu_s390_skeys_enabled(S390SKeysState *ss)
{
- QEMUS390SKeysState *skeys = QEMU_S390_SKEYS(obj);
- MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
+ QEMUS390SKeysState *skeys = QEMU_S390_SKEYS(ss);
- skeys->key_count = machine->ram_size / TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;
- skeys->keydata = g_malloc0(skeys->key_count);
+ /* Lockless check is sufficient. */
+ return !!skeys->keydata;
}
-static int qemu_s390_skeys_enabled(S390SKeysState *ss)
+static int qemu_s390_skeys_enable(S390SKeysState *ss)
Could you please call this qemu_s390_skeys_activate() so that it's not so
easily confused with the ..._enabled() function?
Well, you enable it and you check if it's enabled ... so using different
terminology is more confusing, no?
I could rename _enabled to is_enabled to make the difference easiert to
sport here.
is_enabled certainly is better than just enabled; otherwise, the two
function names are just way too similar.
Fine for me, too.
Thomas
