>>> On 28.08.17 at 13:01, <blacksk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-08-28 16:29 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>:
>>>>> On 27.08.17 at 10:36, <blacksk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> -static XSM_INLINE int xsm_map_gmfn_foreign(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain
>>> *d, struct domain *t)
>>> +static XSM_INLINE int xsm_map_gmfn_foreign(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain
>>> *cd,
>>> + struct domain *d, struct domain
>>> *t)
>>> {
>>> + int rc;
>>> XSM_ASSERT_ACTION(XSM_TARGET);
>>
>> Missing blank line between declaration and statements.
>
> Sorry. Will fix this.
>
>>
>>> - return xsm_default_action(action, d, t);
>>> + rc = xsm_default_action(action, cd, d);
>>> + if (rc) return rc;
>>
>> Coding style. In any event, as suggested before the whole thing is
>> easier to write as
>>
>>> + return xsm_default_action(action, cd, t);
>>
>> return xsm_default_action(action, cd, d) ?: xsm_default_action(action,
>> cd, t);
>
> But aren't we going to preserve the error code here?
I don't understand the question - if the first function invocation
returns an error, that is what the function here will return. Else
it returns what the second xsm_default_action() invocation
hands back.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
