Messages in this thread | | | From | Vitaly Kuznetsov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: correct meaningless kvm_apicv_activated() check | Date | Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:44:47 +0100 |
| |
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:33:50AM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes: >> > + if ((old == 0) == (new == 0)) >> > + return; >> >> This is a very laconic expression I personally find hard to read :-) >> >> /* Check if WE actually changed APICv state */ >> if ((!old && !new) || (old && new)) >> return; >> >> would be my preference (not strong though, I read yours several times >> and now I feel like I understand it just fine :-) > > Or maybe this to avoid so many equals signs? > > if (!old == !new) > return; >
if (!!old == !!new) return;
to make it clear we're converting them to 1/0 :-)
-- Vitaly
| |