From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96225C433DB for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 397066198C for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 397066198C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.101968.195367 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lPpjW-0008Lm-Ae; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:50 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 101968.195367; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lPpjW-0008Lf-7T; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:50 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 101968; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:49 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lPpjV-0008LZ-EY for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:49 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lPpjV-0003FC-Ax for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:49 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lPpjV-0002yu-A6 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:49 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lPpjR-0003J2-RT; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:45 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=pbqEGjcPljbsFIpuqq2xM2/elg1pjolDjB1DZ+EWjEI=; b=G8Qa+Uz1uFjVmmCMo2mLpZw79i 5rvYhdyn6nTVw2qJSONK1p9Qr/MLWjUpgVXkOuXgNSN7qxKnyY83Swwzh/bimPcIl8/S4fSvUM+u7 ABiOLvjuzruAFURI2nCMxsuSRz2CAZwEcZXUEByYwL3tW4Bu/9sPMDbCQOC/FCUCZRSM=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <24670.4565.669973.152753@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:54:45 +0000 To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel\@lists.xenproject.org" , Andrew Cooper , Wei Liu , Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH][4.15] x86/HPET: don't enable legacy replacement mode unconditionally In-Reply-To: <10de7758-fadd-3a04-d0d9-8ec3074ea149@suse.com> References: <8e18a2a5-bc19-615d-0c8c-cea49adcf976@suse.com> <24670.3891.328817.908772@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <10de7758-fadd-3a04-d0d9-8ec3074ea149@suse.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH][4.15] x86/HPET: don't enable legacy replacement mode unconditionally"): > Thanks, but with Andrew's pending objection I don't feel like > committing it. I understand. > > I have to say that this > > > > - if ( hpet_rate ) > > + if ( hpet_rate || !hpet_address || !opt_hpet ) > > return hpet_rate; > > > > - if ( hpet_address == 0 ) > > - return 0; > > - > > > > is to my mind quite an obscure coding style. > > > > Do we really want to return a nozero hpet_rate even if !opt_hpet ? > > We won't: hpet_rate will be set to non-zero only further down in > the function. Oh, I see. Right. Thanks for the quick reply. Ian.