From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59108)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Vr2d7-0001Bk-U5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:32:31 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Vr2d1-0005vg-VN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:32:25 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37468)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Vr2d1-0005va-On
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:32:19 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:32:07 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20131212093207.GD10007@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com>
References: <1386796109-15264-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<1386796109-15264-2-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<52A92570.6030303@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<52A9262D.7070406@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20131212085110.55ec7b7c@oc7435384737.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131212085110.55ec7b7c@oc7435384737.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/22] block: Move initialisation of
 BlockLimits to bdrv_refresh_limits()
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: Thomas Huth <thuth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, pl@kamp.de, Wenchao Xia <xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 12.12.2013 um 08:51 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:57:49 +0800
> Wenchao Xia <xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >> +static int bdrv_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs)
> > >> +{
> > >> +    BlockDriver *drv = bs->drv;
> > >> +
> > >> +    memset(&bs->bl, 0, sizeof(bs->bl));
> > >> +
> > >> +    if (!drv) {
> > >> +        return 0;
> > >> +    } else if (drv->bdrv_refresh_limits) {
> > >> +        return drv->bdrv_refresh_limits(bs);
> > >> +    }
> > >> +
> > >> +    return 0;
> > >      It seems this line can be removed.
> > > 
> >   I missed the "else if", then the patch is OK.
>  
> But it could also be written in a shorter way:
> 
>     if (drv && drv->bdrv_refresh_limits) {
>         return drv->bdrv_refresh_limits(bs);
>     }
> 
>     return 0;

Indeed, with some code changes, this has become a bit more complicated
than necessary. I need to touch the patch anyway for Peter's comments,
so I'll change it, even though it disappears anyway later in the series.

Kevin