On 07/09/2015 03:52 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote: > I don't feel very strongly about it, so if you really prefer you can > keep the code as it is, however this looks somewhat counterintuitive to > me, especially when you compare the new condition to the old one, > because > ... > > > Yea, this patch is not critical. Jan just requested to use a wrapper for > hvm_funcs in the other patch so I figured I might as well fix it > everywhere in our code. It's pretty minor stuff.
Well, I think that the patch is a good idea, I was just talking about changing the function to return a bool_t. Sorry for not being clearer. Cheers, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
