[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ccf245b17d7140099ad89628635a04ef@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 09:58:34 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Binbin Wu' <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"kai.huang@...el.com" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"robert.hu@...ux.intel.com" <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 1/6] KVM: x86: Consolidate flags for __linearize()
From: Binbin Wu
> Sent: 11 May 2023 02:26
...
> >> unsigned max_size;
> >> - return __linearize(ctxt, addr, &max_size, size, write, false,
> >> + u32 flags = 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (write)
> >> + flags |= X86EMUL_F_WRITE;
> > this can be more dense:
> >
> > u32 flags = write ? X86EMUL_F_WRITE : 0;
> Thanks, will update it.
You can also dispense with the extra local variable and
put the ?: into the parameter list.
Even more so with the other calls sites.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists