On 12/12/16 07:27, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> 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?
register_address_adjust() was my first alternative name, so ok. With that changed, Revewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> to save another trip on email. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
