From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53130)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <drjones@redhat.com>) id 1YVMSh-0005Ej-Lw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:52:52 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <drjones@redhat.com>) id 1YVMSd-0000y6-9H
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:52:51 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33582)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <drjones@redhat.com>) id 1YVMSd-0000xh-23
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:52:47 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:52:39 +0100
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150310155238.GA6320@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1423753507-30542-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
	<1423753507-30542-2-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA-SA3v3yd==kHDGPKnY6mfLRWhh4vtmu16bjVo05dZPRw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-SA3v3yd==kHDGPKnY6mfLRWhh4vtmu16bjVo05dZPRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] target-arm: convert check_ap to
	get_rw_prot
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:12:20PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 February 2015 at 15:05, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> > +        *prot = get_rw_prot(env, mmu_idx, ap, domain_prot);
> > +        *prot |= *prot && !xn ? PAGE_EXEC : 0;
> 
> I'm not a great fan of complicated ?: expressions, incidentally;
> I think this is clearer to read as
>    if (*prot && !xn) {
>        *prot |= PAGE_EXEC;
>    }
> 
> -- PMM

OK, I'll change it if we need a v2.

Thanks,
drew