From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86: also allow REP STOS emulation
	acceleration
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:46:45 +0000
Message-ID: <54AFCDB5.5010105@citrix.com>
References: <54AEB49C0200007800052BDE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<54AEB5690200007800052BF1@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<54AEDA80.4080405@citrix.com>
	<54AFBB3C02000078000530D4@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<54AFB3FA.1050000@citrix.com>
	<20150109111831.GA99970@deinos.phlegethon.org>
	<54AFC88F02000078000531D0@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<20150109114505.GB99970@deinos.phlegethon.org>
	<54AFD355020000780005321C@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1Y9Yxm-0006a0-Km
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:46:50 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54AFD355020000780005321C@mail.emea.novell.com>
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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/01/15 12:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.01.15 at 12:45, <tim@xen.org> wrote:
>> At 11:24 +0000 on 09 Jan (1420799087), Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 09.01.15 at 12:18, <tim@xen.org> wrote:
>>>>>> +            default:
>>>>>> +                xfree(buf);
>>>>>> +                ASSERT(!buf);
>>>> looks dodgy...
>>> In which way? The "default" is supposed to be unreachable, and sits
>>> in the else branch to an if(!buf), i.e. in a release build we'll correctly
>>> free the buffer, while in a debug build the ASSERT() will trigger.
>> Oh I see.  Can you please use ASSERT(0) for that?
> I sincerely dislike ASSERT(0), but if that's the only way to get
> the patch accepted...
>
> Jan
>

Perhaps introducing ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() as an alternative which is more
obvious in nature than both ASSERT(!buf) and ASSERT(0) ?

~Andrew