Re: [PATCH] vhost-net: fix reversed logic in mask notifiers

[Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>]

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:

>> we have:
>> 
>> if (msix_is_masked())
>>    return 0
>> r = msix_mask_notifier(....., !msix_is_masked());
>> 
>> i.e. at that point msix_is_masked() is false, or we really, really needs
>> locking.
>> 
>> Puttting a !foo, when we know that it needs to be an 1 looks strange.
>> 
>> Later, Juan.
>> 
>> PD.  Yes, I already asked in a previous version to just have two
>> methods, mask/unmask.  we now at call time which one we need.
>
>
> I find msix_is_masked clearer here than true since you don't need
> to look up definition to understand what this 'true' stands for.
> The value is clear from code above. What do you think?

I preffer the change, but it is up to you.

at that point, we are using !msix_masked() to mean "true"

i.e. we know that msix_masked() is false.  What you want to do is "mask".

Later, Juan.