Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8]: PVH: Basic and preparatory changes

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:35:54 +0100
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 01:57 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> 
> > +void __init xen_arch_setup(void)
> > +{
> > +       xen_panic_handler_init();
> > +
> > +       if (!xen_pvh_domain())
> > +               xen_non_pvh_arch_setup();
> 
> The negative in the fn name here strikes me as a bit weird. Can't this
> just be xen_pv_arch_setup?

Well, PVH is PV, so xen_pv_arch_setup would be confusing. Thus I can't
say if (xen_pv_domain()). The negative logic tells the reader right
away that the PV code doesn't apply to PVH. I earlier had
xen_pure_pv_arch_setup(), but like non_pvh better.

> Or even just have:
> 	/* Everything else is specific to PV without hardware support
> */ if (xen_pvh_domain())
> 		return;

No, the code following if statement is common to both PV and PVH.