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

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:58:15PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "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.

Right. I guess I'll keep it as is, when I look at it with a fresh mind
next time, I'll clean it all up.

-- 
MST