On 13.01.2020 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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)?
It will be the same in this case and it can be dropped. > >> I don't know why git made the patch so ugly. > > I have no idea what ugliness you refer to here. > I was talking about the fact that the changes in p2m_set_suppress_ve() got mixed with the ones in p2m_set_suppress_ve_multi(). _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
