From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen: pvhvm: allow user to request
	no emulated device unplug
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:44:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4C6D5F6B.2060402@goop.org>
References: <1282211932.3170.2341.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>	
	<1282211946-8629-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com>	
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1008191132250.2545@kaball-desktop>	
	<1282215007.3170.2449.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>	
	<1282215140.3170.2454.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>	
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1008191153300.2545@kaball-desktop>	
	<4C6D577F.6020607@goop.org>
	<1282235659.3731.37.camel@qabil.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <1282235659.3731.37.camel@qabil.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Gianni Tedesco <gianni.tedesco@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

 On 08/19/2010 09:34 AM, Gianni Tedesco wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 17:10 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 08/19/2010 03:54 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 11:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 11:37 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>  	if (r && !(r == XEN_PLATFORM_ERR_MAGIC &&
>>>>>>> +			(xen_emul_unplug != -1) &&
>>>>>>>  			(xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE)))
>>>>>> I wouldn't add xen_emul_unplug != -1 because it should be clear that
>>>>>> xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE always implies xen_emul_unplug != -1.
>>>>> That's not correct since -1 is all 1s. So you can get a false positive
>>>>> for "xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE" if xen_emul_unplug == -1.
>>>> IOW if we were to rewrite the test to use less boolean logic the patch
>>>> might look like:
>>>>
>>>> 	if (r) {
>>>> 		if (r != XEN_PLATFORM_ERR_MAGIC)
>>>> 			return;
>>>> +		if (xen_emul_unplug == -1)
>>>> +			return;
>>>> 		if (!(xen_emul_unplug & XEN_UNPLUG_IGNORE))
>>>> 			return;
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this refactoring is worthwhile in any case? It certainly makes
>>>> my head hurt less ;-)
>>>>
>>>  
>>> Yeah, it is probably worth it anyway :)
>> Treating a variable as an integer and a bitfield seems like a bad idea.
> Should be fine? I'd just #define XEN_UNPLUG_ALL_THE_BITS ~0U for the
> sake of cosmetics...

In a bitfield the bits are typically independent, whereas in an integer
you interpret all the bits to get a value.  Making "all bits set" mean
something other than all the bitfield bits are set is just asking for
something bad to happen to you.

Why not define a bit to mean whatever "-1" currently means?

    J