[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Properly advertise cpuselection guest capability



On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > >      guest->arch.defaultInfo.emulator_mtime = binary_mtime;
> > >  
> > > -    if (qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
> > > +    if (caps->host.cpu
> > > +        && qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
> > >          && ncpus > 0
> > >          && !virCapabilitiesAddGuestFeature(guest, "cpuselection", 1, 0))
> > >          goto error;
> > 
> >   We usually put && on end of line,
> Yeah, usually, although not always :-) I prefer it this way as you don't have
> to look at the end of line to check if that line is part of the condition or
> not. But I don't really care too much and I can change it.
> 
> > and I really prefer fully parenthesized tests expressions
> Hmm, I don't :-) Because you can see the difference if you mistakenly type =
> instead of == there (well, not in this exact case, but in general):
> 
>     if (x = 0) vs. if ((x = 0))
> 
> In the first case gcc would warn you but in the second one it wouldn't. So I
> prefer extra parentheses to be put only around assignments not tests to reveal
> this kind of typos.

  If you're afraid of == turning into = then do what peopel suggest
which is to swap the arguments (foo() = bar) or (0 = bar) will both
be caught and even more drastically by compilers, but the expression
will be readable/understandable without trying to remember what is the
order of priorities for operators in C !

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]