From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: reduce redundancy in
	tsc_[gs]et_info()
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:04:42 +0100
Message-ID: <5368EBFA.8000402@citrix.com>
References: <5368FFD0020000780000F64D@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<5368E854.2050303@citrix.com>
	<53690625020000780000F719@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1WhfzD-0005YV-Ke
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 14:04:47 +0000
In-Reply-To: <53690625020000780000F719@mail.emea.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>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 06/05/14 14:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 06.05.14 at 15:49, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 06/05/14 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>      case TSC_MODE_PVRDTSCP:
>>> -        d->arch.vtsc =  boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP) &&
>>> -                        host_tsc_is_safe() ?  0 : 1;
>>> +        d->arch.vtsc = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP) &&
>>> +                       host_tsc_is_safe() ?  0 : 1;
>> Can this be reduced to boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP) &&
>> !host_tsc_is_safe() ?
>>
>> I believe this is the correct way around with the precedence between &&
>> and ?!, but it is far from clear.  Alternatively, could some brackets be
>> introduced for clarity?
> No, ?: has lower precedence than all binary operators other than
> assignment ones and comma. But yes, this is ugly - I'll change it to

 /Sigh - I specifically looked the precedence up, then mentally got it
wrong given the linebreak.  It really is in need of some clarification.

>
> d->arch.vtsc = !(boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP) && host_tsc_is_safe());

This was going to be my suggestion given the correct precedence.

~Andrew

>
> or, one character shorter,
>
> d->arch.vtsc = !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP) || !host_tsc_is_safe();
>
> (somehow I also managed to overlook the other double space in there).
>
> Jan
>