Re: [PATCH] x86: do away with HAVE_AS_NEGATIVE_TRUE

2023-05-19 Thread Jan Beulich
On 19.05.2023 08:15, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 17.05.2023 19:05, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 17/05/2023 3:22 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> There's no real need for the associated probing - we can easily convert >>> to a uniform value without knowing the specific behavior (note also that >>> the respectiv

Re: [PATCH] x86: do away with HAVE_AS_NEGATIVE_TRUE

2023-05-18 Thread Jan Beulich
On 17.05.2023 19:05, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/05/2023 3:22 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> There's no real need for the associated probing - we can easily convert >> to a uniform value without knowing the specific behavior (note also that >> the respective comments weren't fully correct and have gone

Re: [PATCH] x86: do away with HAVE_AS_NEGATIVE_TRUE

2023-05-17 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 17/05/2023 3:22 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > There's no real need for the associated probing - we can easily convert > to a uniform value without knowing the specific behavior (note also that > the respective comments weren't fully correct and have gone stale). All > we (need to) depend upon is unar

[PATCH] x86: do away with HAVE_AS_NEGATIVE_TRUE

2023-05-17 Thread Jan Beulich
There's no real need for the associated probing - we can easily convert to a uniform value without knowing the specific behavior (note also that the respective comments weren't fully correct and have gone stale). All we (need to) depend upon is unary ! producing 0 or 1 (and never -1). For all pres