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

[Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 09:00:30PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> 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 This is the v1 series which was totally superseded by the v2 series also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.

OK. I saw Ian's reply on 27th and thought it was still in progress.

Wei.