From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36430)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1YVLpv-00021P-HN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:12:48 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1YVLps-0000mq-Ln
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:12:47 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]:33110)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1YVLps-0000mm-Fc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:12:44 -0400
Received: by labmn12 with SMTP id mn12so2458818lab.0
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1423753507-30542-2-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
References: <1423753507-30542-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
	<1423753507-30542-2-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:12:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA-SA3v3yd==kHDGPKnY6mfLRWhh4vtmu16bjVo05dZPRw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] target-arm: convert check_ap to
	get_rw_prot
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: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 12 February 2015 at 15:05, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> +        *prot = get_rw_prot(env, mmu_idx, ap, domain_prot);
> +        *prot |= *prot && !xn ? PAGE_EXEC : 0;

I'm not a great fan of complicated ?: expressions, incidentally;
I think this is clearer to read as
   if (*prot && !xn) {
       *prot |= PAGE_EXEC;
   }

-- PMM