>>> On 15.01.19 at 16:49, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:27:41AM -0800, Christopher Clark wrote:
>> +static int
>> +pending_requeue(const struct domain *d, struct argo_ring_info *ring_info,
>> + domid_t src_id, unsigned int len)
>> +{
>> + struct hlist_node *node;
>> + struct pending_ent *ent;
>> +
>> + ASSERT(LOCKING_L3(d, ring_info));
>> +
>> + hlist_for_each_entry(ent, node, &ring_info->pending, node)
>> + {
>> + if ( ent->domain_id == src_id )
>> + {
>> + /*
>> + * Reuse an existing queue entry for a notification rather than
>> add
>> + * another. If the existing entry is waiting for a smaller size
>> than
>> + * the current message then adjust the record to wait for the
>> + * current (larger) size to be available before triggering a
>> + * notification.
>> + * This assists the waiting sender by ensuring that whenever a
>> + * notification is triggered, there is sufficient space
>> available
>> + * for (at least) any one of the messages awaiting transmission.
>> + */
>> + if ( ent->len < len )
>> + ent->len = len;
>
> Nit:
>
> ent->len = max(ent->len, len);
I don't think use of max() should be a requirement in cases where
one of the items compared is also the value to update. I'm not
even convinced it helps readability of the sources, let alone the
quality of generated code.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
