From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xsm/evtchn: Never pretend to have
 successfully created a Xen event channel
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:41:33 +0000
Message-ID: <54BCED6D.1040004@citrix.com>
References: <1421664352-9488-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<54BCFA970200007800056681@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>
In-Reply-To: <54BCFA970200007800056681@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>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 19/01/15 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 19.01.15 at 11:45, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/event_channel.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/event_channel.c
>> @@ -1155,21 +1155,25 @@ int alloc_unbound_xen_event_channel(
>>  
>>      spin_lock(&d->event_lock);
>>  
>> -    if ( (port = get_free_port(d)) < 0 )
>> +    rc = get_free_port(d);
>> +    if ( rc < 0 )
>>          goto out;
>> +    port = rc;
> While this is kind of unrelated to the real change done in this patch,
> I'm fine with it being here, but I wonder whether this shouldn't be
> accompanied by a type change of "port" (to evtchn_port_t).

There are a number of other places which could also do with similar
typechanges for port (evtchn_from_port(), port_is_valid() etc).  I would
suggest that any such change be a separate patch.

~Andrew