From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v12 16/21] pvh: Use PV handlers for
 emulated forced invalid ops, cpuid, and IO
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:48:50 +0100
Message-ID: <524046C2.7010902@eu.citrix.com>
References: <1379089521-25720-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<1379089521-25720-17-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<5239E36502000078000F4761@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>) id 1VO6VS-0001Zh-Jh
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:48:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5239E36502000078000F4761@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 18/09/13 16:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> +void propagate_page_fault(unsigned long addr, u16 error_code)
>> +{
>> +    is_pvh_vcpu(current)
>> +        ? hvm_inject_page_fault(error_code, addr)
>> +        : pv_inject_page_fault(addr, error_code);
> Even if not written down in CODINGSTYLE, the majority of other
> cases in the code has the operators last thing on a line rather than
> first.

In the case of boolean operators (&&, ||) I think it makes a lot more 
sense to put them at the beginning of the line; I think it makes the 
code easier to read.

But with the ?: operator I guess it's about the same either way, so I'll 
just go ahead and change it.

  -George