[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbb3e5ac-1b51-abdf-c7ce-372af548f26b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 09:35:27 +0800
From: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.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()
On 5/11/2023 5:58 PM, David Laight wrote:
> 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.
Thanks, I will check whether they are better to be put in the parameter
list directly instead of using a local variable.
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists