>>> Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.leng...@zentific.com> 08/25/15 1:51 AM >>>
>>> @@ -1768,7 +1768,7 @@ static void vmx_enable_msr_exit_interception(struct
>>> domain *d)
>>>
>>> static bool_t vmx_is_singlestep_supported(void)
>>> {
>>> - return cpu_has_monitor_trap_flag;
>>> + return cpu_has_monitor_trap_flag ? 1 : 0;
>>
>> Prevailing style would tend towards !!cpu_has_monitor_trap_flag
>
>Yeap, you are right. If the maintainers prefer I can resend with that style.
This could easily be adjusted upon commit. What I'm wondering is whether this
is the right place to fix it: Wouldn't it be better for the cpu_has_* macros
themselves to be adjusted so other (future) users won't fall into the same trap
(vmx_virtual_intr_delivery_enabled() is a good second example bogusly using
int as its return type, and once adjusted to bool_t it would break)?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
