From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NRrqq-0001NH-Fr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:24 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NRrql-0001Dq-NI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:23 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55808 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NRrql-0001DH-BB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:19 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:53271)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1NRrqh-0000WR-KS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:16 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1NRrqa-0000Ew-AA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4B4235F9.4070709@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:39:53 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/19] avoid dubiously clever code in
	win32_start_timer
References: <1261382970-23251-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1261382970-23251-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<4B4242A8.2020305@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4B4242A8.2020305@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 01/04/2010 08:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 02:09 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> The code is initializing an unsigned int to UINT_MAX using "-1", so that
>> the following always-true comparison seems to be always-false at a
>> first look. Just remove the if.
>
> This really needs a better comment message as at first it wasn't obvious
> to me that this was correct.
>
> start_timer is only ever called once and as such, the check here is
> unnecessary. It's not incorrect, it's just more robust than it needs to be.
>
> I'm not sure it's really worth removing to be honest.

I didn't like the comparison with -1 being always true.  I'll update 
with a comment.

Paolo