On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 13/05/15 11:09, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>>> b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>>> index 58efdb9..f4604db 100644
>>> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>>> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>>> @@ -184,7 +184,13 @@ static int x86_hvm_start_of_stream(struct
>>> xc_sr_context *ctx)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int x86_hvm_end_of_stream(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
>>> +static int x86_hvm_start_of_checkpoint(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
>>> +{
>>> + /* no-op */
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int x86_hvm_end_of_checkpoint(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
>>> {
>>> int rc;
>>>
>>> @@ -209,7 +215,7 @@ static int x86_hvm_end_of_stream(struct xc_sr_context
>>> *ctx)
>>> if ( rc )
>>> return rc;
>>>
>>> - return rc;
>>> + return 0;
>>> }
>> Nit: It looks like this boils down to:
>>
>> if ( rc != 0 ) return rc; else return 0;
>>
>> Why not just return rc and be done with it?
>>
>> (Just skimming through, no other comments ATM)
>
> Cleaner when adding new hunks in, which other patches do.
Sounds reasonable. :-)
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
