From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] credit: track residual from divisions done
 during accounting
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:00:19 +0000
Message-ID: <512CA3D3.3040002@citrix.com>
References: <51222E8302000078000BF1F3@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1361554003.16232.33.camel@Solace>
	<512B3CF702000078000C0AC6@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<512B4724.5000603@citrix.com>
	<512B594E02000078000C0BD1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<512C9BD2.70903@eu.citrix.com>
	<512CAEA902000078000C10BF@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130226115229.GB93966@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130226115229.GB93966@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 26/02/13 11:52, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 11:46 +0000 on 26 Feb (1361879193), Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 26.02.13 at 12:26, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/25/2013 11:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.02.13 at 12:12, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 25/02/13 09:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22.02.13 at 18:26, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 12:37 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> +    ASSERT(credits == val);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I may be missing something, but how can the assert ever be false, given
>>>>>>> the assignment right before it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> val being wider than credit, this checks that there was no truncation.
>>>>>
>>>>> ASSERT(val <= UINT_MAX);
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be clearer.
>>>>
>>>> A matter of taste perhaps...
>>>
>>> I have a taste for coders having to keep as little state in their head 
>>> as possible. :-)  Comparing to UINT_MAX prompts the coder specifically 
>>> to think about the size of the variables.
>>
>> Okay, assuming this is the only thing you dislike, I'll change it then
>> and re-submit.
>>
>> But for the record - using UINT_MAX here will get things out of
>> sync the moment the type of "credits" changes, whereas with
>> the way I had coded it this would be taken care of implicitly.
> 
> How about ASSERT(((typeof credits) val) == val) before the assignment?

FWIW, this works for me.

David