Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 08/16] xen: Add limited support of VMware's hyper-call rpc

["Slutz, Donald Christopher" <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/16/14 08:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.09.14 at 14:38, <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09/12/14 10:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 12.09.14 at 15:37, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 09/11/2014 02:36 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>>>>> +static inline uint16_t get_low_bits(uint32_t bits)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return bits & 0xffff;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline uint16_t get_high_bits(uint32_t bits)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return bits >> 16;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline uint32_t set_high_bits(uint32_t b, uint32_t val)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return (val << 16) | get_low_bits(b);
>>>>> +}
>>> The names of all three functions (at least one of which I think I saw
>>> in a reply to an earlier patch - code duplication?) are bogus: How
>>> many high or low bits (and for the "high" case out of how many) are
>>> we talking about here?
>> I have no issue with changing the names.  How does
>>
>> s/get_low_bits/get_low_16bits_of_32/
>> s/get_high_bits/get_high_16bits_of_32/
>> s/set_high_bits/set_high_16bits_of_32/
>>
>> look as a fix?
> Ugly. What's wrong with dropping these wrappers? Would the
> resulting code be so much worse to read?

I guess not.  I can go that way.

     -Don Slutz

> Jan
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel