Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/setup: simplify handling of initrdidx when no initrd present

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:51 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.03.2020 12:46, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Remove a ternary operator that made my brain hurt.
> 
> My position towards this hasn't changed, just ftr.

Your position was not clearly stated. In
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-02/msg01664.html
you indicated that you preferred for it to remain as-is but you did not
even seem to be disputing that the code is simpler and easier for the
reader to understand after my cleanup.

I was left wondering if your position was merely that you *liked*
making my brain hurt? :)

> > Replace it with something simpler that makes it somewhat clearer that
> > the check for initrdidx < mbi->mods_count is because larger values are
> > what find_first_bit() will return when it doesn't find anything.
> > 
> > Also drop the explicit check for module #0 since that would be the
> > dom0 kernel and the corresponding bit is always clear in module_map.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Strictly speaking this is not a valid tag here, only R-b would be.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel