From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47225 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PnBHt-0008D2-GV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:44:58 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1PnBHr-0003bZ-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:44:57 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38323)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1PnBHq-0003aY-Uu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:44:55 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:54:16 -0200
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110209135416.GA32689@amt.cnet>
References: <cover.1297077506.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
	<1e7a4f5097aafb5da844c1b9ff8661539d0d10e8.1297077506.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
	<20110208185056.GA13617@amt.cnet> <4D524B56.1050900@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D524B56.1050900@web.de>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 02/15] Refactor
	cpu_has_work/any_cpu_has_work in cpus.c
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 09:07:50AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Do you really find it easier to read evaluations grouped with || ? I
> > don't.
> 
> I do, specifically as the old version was even more confusing in that
> important detail "return 0" vs. "return 1". But even the new benefits
> from the grouping IMHO.

Well alright.

> > Sorry but the name change does not feel right either: CPU is still idle
> > if the vm is not running.
> 
> But that's exactly what the function returns. Or is it confusing if we
> are talking about the vcpu or the whole thread here? What about
> "cpu_thread_is_idle" then?

Yes thats better.