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

[Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>]

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.

Wei.