Re: [PATCH 1/5] xen/common: introduce a new framework for save/restore of 'domain' context

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 01/04/2020 13:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.04.2020 14:00, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 27/03/2020 18:50, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > +    if ( (exact ?
> > > +          (dst_len != c->desc.length) : (dst_len < c->desc.length)) ||
> > Using ternary in if is really confusing. How about:
> >
> > dst_len < c->desc.length || (exact && dst_len != c->desc.length) ||
> >
> > I understand that there would be two check for the exact case but I think it is 
> > better than a ternary.
> I'm of the opposite opinion, and hence with Paul. While the alternative
> you suggest is still reasonable because of the special case here, I
> find it confusing / more difficult to read / follow
>
>      if ( (a && b) || (!a && c) )
>
> (and I've seen quite a few instances of such over time) instead of
>
>      if ( a ? b : c )
If the ternary was the only condition and in a single line then it would 
be okay. However, the if is split over 3 lines...
The more stuff you put in an if, then more chance you are going to 
misread/make a mistake (you likely know what I am referring about here ;)).
So if you prefer the ternary, then we should at least write 2 ifs.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall