On 13.01.2020 11:32, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
> On 10.01.2020 18:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.01.2020 15:08, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
>>> + if ( !(rc = p2m_set_suppress_ve_multi(d, &sve)) && sve.first_error )
>>> + rc = sve.first_error;
>>
>> Why the right side of the && ?
>
> This is intended to have p2m_set_suppress_ve() call
> p2m_set_suppress_ve_multi(). So here first I call the _multi version and
> the check if there was any error from the set/get (that is what
> p2m_set_suppress_ve did before).
To put my original question differently: from a functionality pov,
how would
if ( !(rc = p2m_set_suppress_ve_multi(d, &sve)) )
rc = sve.first_error;
be different from your variant (as long as the field indeed starts
out as zero)?
> I don't know why git made the patch so ugly.
I have no idea what ugliness you refer to here.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
