Re: [PATCH 01/12] libxc/save: Shrink code volume where possible

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27/04/2020 20:55, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 06:19:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH 01/12] libxc/save: Shrink code volume 
>> where possible"):
>>> On 14/01/2020 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> Andrew Cooper writes ("[PATCH 01/12] libxc/save: Shrink code volume where 
>>>> possible"):
>>>>> A property of how the error handling (0 on success, nonzero otherwise)
>>>>> allows these calls to be chained together with the ternary operatior.
>>>> I'm quite surprised to find a suggestion like this coming from you in
>>>> particular.
>>> What probably is relevant is that ?: is a common construct in the
>>> hypervisor, which I suppose does colour my expectation of people knowing
>>> exactly what it means and how it behaves.
>> I expect other C programmers to know what ?: does, too.  But I think
>> using it to implement the error monad is quite unusual.  I asked
>> around a bit and my feeling is still that this isn't an improvement.
>>
>>>> Or just to permit
>>>>    rc = write_one_vcpu_basic(ctx, i);    if (rc) goto error;
>>>> (ie on a single line).
>>> OTOH, it should come as no surprise that I'd rather drop this patch
>>> entirely than go with these alternatives, both of which detract from
>>> code clarity. The former for hiding control flow, and the latter for
>>> being atypical layout which unnecessary cognitive load to follow.
>> I think, then, that it would be best to drop this patch, unless Wei
>> (or someone else) disagrees with me.
> I don't feel strongly either way.

I'm confused... I dropped this 3 and a half months ago, because it was
blindingly obvious it was going nowhere.

This is the v1 series which was totally superseded by the v2 series also
posted in January.

~Andrew