>>> On 09.12.16 at 18:11, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 09/12/16 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Move the looking at EFLAGS.DF into the macro, rendering all call sites >> more readable. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > The net change is ok; it is certainly cleaner to read in the body of > x86_emulate(). > > However, the naming of register_address_increment() was previously ok, > as it was obvious at the calling point that a negative increment was > possible. This subtly is now hidden. > > How about reg_addr_adjust() or reg_addr_adjust_dir() as an alternative > name? This retains the property that it is obvious that the direction > flag is followed in the calculation.
That's fine with me; I admit that I've overlooked that the use of "increment" in the name has now become further disconnected from the actual operation. In line with _register_address_increment() I'd prefer to call it _register_address_adjust() though; in fact it might be reasonable to also replace "increment" with "adjust" in the other one (as it's similarly used for adjustments in both directions). What do you think? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
