From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38869)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1aLa3F-0005E3-02
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:26:43 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1aLa3E-0006DF-6q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:26:40 -0500
References: <1453179117-17909-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com>
	<1453179117-17909-2-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com>
	<569E2283.9070904@redhat.com> <569E6C99.6020308@redhat.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <569E71C5.2060601@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:26:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <569E6C99.6020308@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] ide: Prohibit RESET on IDE drives
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org

On 01/19/16 18:04, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/19/2016 06:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19/01/2016 05:51, John Snow wrote:
>>> +    /* Only RESET is allowed to an ATAPI device while BSY and/or DRQ are set. */
>>> +    if (s->status & (BUSY_STAT|DRQ_STAT)) {
>>> +        if (!(val == WIN_DEVICE_RESET) && (s->drive_kind == IDE_CD)) {
>>
>> I was going to complain about Pascal-ish parentheses, but actually I
>> think there is a bug here; the expression just looks weird.
>>
>> Did you mean
>>
>> 	if (!(val == WIN_DEVICE_RESET && s->drive_kind == IDE_CD))
>>
>> or equivalently applying de Morgan's law:
>>
>> 	if (s->drive_kind != IDE_CD || val != WIN_DEVICE_RESET)
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>>> +            return;
>>
> 
> ugh, yes, I typo'd. Thank you.
> 
> If you're still up, which do you find more readable?
> The (!(A && B)) form or the (!A || !B) form?

You didn't ask me, but that's no problem for me. :)

The logical negation operator "!" has much-much stronger binding than
the logical "and" and logical "or" ones. If you use the first form,

  !(A && B)

it works, but spacetime will curl every time someone sees those
parentheses overriding the nice n' tight binding of "!".

So, for me, only the second form *exists* -- for me, the operand of the
logical negation operator must always be as "indivisible" an expression
as possible :)

So,

  (!A || !B)

without a doubt.

Thanks
Laszlo