On 12/19/2011 05:10 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 09:04 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/19/2011 04:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
+static int cmp_flatrange_addr(const void *_addr, const void *_fr)
+{
+ const AddrRange *addr = _addr;
+ const FlatRange *fr = _fr;
Please don't prefix with an underscore.
Why not? It's legal according to the standards, if that's your concern
(only _[_A-Z]+ are reserved).
http://www.gnu.org/s/hello/manual/libc/Reserved-Names.html
"In addition to the names documented in this manual, reserved names
include all external identifiers (global functions and variables) that
begin with an underscore (‘_’)"
Now that might just mean that you're shadowing a global name, so maybe
that's okay, but I think it's easier to just enforce a consistent rule
of, "don't start identifiers with an underscore".
I rather like the pattern
void callback(void *_foo)
{
Foo *foo = _foo;
...
}
If the consensus is that we don't want it, I'll change it, but I do
think it's useful.
+MemoryRegionSection memory_region_find(MemoryRegion *address_space,
+ target_phys_addr_t addr,
uint64_t size);
Returning structs by value is a bit unexpected.
It's just prejudice, here's the call sequence:
It's not about whether it's fast or slow. It's just unexpected.
It's plain C, I don't see why it's so unexpected.
Instead of returning a NULL pointer on error, you set .mr to NULL if
an error occurs (which isn't documented by the comment btw).
Returning a pointer, or taking a pointer and returning a 0/-1 return
value makes for a more consistent semantic with the rest of the code
base.
How can I return a pointer? If I allocate it, someone has to free it.
If I pass it as a parameter, we end up with a silly looking calling
convention. If I return an error code, the caller has to set up an
additional variable.
The natural check is section.size which is always meaningful -
memory_region_find() returns a subrange of the input, which may be
zero. You're right that I should document it (and I should use it
consistently).