On 1/23/20 4:23 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:14 AM George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> > wrote: >> >> On 1/21/20 5:49 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>> MEM_SHARING_DESTROY_GFN is used on the 'flags' bitfield during unsharing. >>> However, the bitfield is not used for anything else, so just convert it to a >>> bool instead. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.leng...@intel.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> >> But is there a particular advantage to getting rid of the bitfield? >> >> You're the maintainer, so it's your decision of course. But if it were >> me I'd leave it as a bitfield so that all the bitfield code is there if >> it's needed in the future. Flipping it to a bool, with the risk of >> flipping it back to a bitfield later, seems like pointless churn to me. >> >> (Although perhaps the reason will become evident by the time I get to >> the end of the series.) > > Provided its been many years since this code has been added with no > need for any extra bits, and with no expectations that this would > change any time soon, I wouldn't worry about that. True, there is very > little difference between keeping the code as-is vs converting it to > bool, but IMHO it makes the code easier to follow without you > wondering what might be those non-existent situations that warranted > it to be a bitmap to begin with.
It's definitely a judgement call, and I can see where you're coming from. Like I said, if it were me I'd leave it, but it's not. :-) Just wanted to raise the issue as I was going through. I'd Ack it but you've already got an R-b. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
