On 01.02.2020 01:33, David Woodhouse wrote: > From: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk> > > Remove a ternary operator that made my brain hurt.
Personally I'd prefer the code to stay as is, but if Andrew agrees with this being an improvement, then I also wouldn't want to stand in the way. If it is to go in I have a few small adjustment requests: > Replace it with something simpler that makes it somewhat clearer that > the check for initrdidx < mbi->mods_count is because mbi->mods_count > is what find_first_bit() will return when it doesn't find anything. Especially in light of the recent XSA-307 I'd like to ask that we avoid imprecise statements like this: Afaict find_first_bit() may also validly return any value larger than the passed in bitmap length. > @@ -1793,6 +1793,9 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) > xen_processor_pmbits |= XEN_PROCESSOR_PM_CX; > > initrdidx = find_first_bit(module_map, mbi->mods_count); > + if ( initrdidx < mbi->mods_count ) > + initrd = mod + initrdidx; > + > if ( bitmap_weight(module_map, mbi->mods_count) > 1 ) > printk(XENLOG_WARNING > "Multiple initrd candidates, picking module #%u\n", Since this if() is tightly coupled with the find_first_bit() invocation, I'd like to ask for there to not be a blank line in between. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
