[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F8AB02A.9020601@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:25:30 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
CC: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] KVM: MMU: return bool in __rmap_write_protect
On 04/14/2012 05:00 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:11:13 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > The reture value of __rmap_write_protect is either 1 or 0, use
> > true/false instead of these
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -1689,7 +1690,7 @@ static void mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >
> > kvm_mmu_pages_init(parent, &parents, &pages);
> > while (mmu_unsync_walk(parent, &pages)) {
> > - int protected = 0;
> > + bool protected = false;
> >
> > for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i)
> > protected |= rmap_write_protect(vcpu->kvm, sp->gfn);
>
> Isn't this the reason we prefer int to bool?
>
> Not sure people like to use |= with boolean.
>
Why not?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists