[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 04/14] nodedev: Use switch for virNodeDeviceObjHasCap and virNodeDeviceCapMatch



On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 15:57:01 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> In order to ensure that whenever something is added to virNodeDevCapType
> that both functions are considered for processing of a new capability,
> change the if-then-else construct into a switch statement.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan redhat com>
> ---
>  src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c
> index bbb6eeb..913cdda 100644
> --- a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c
> +++ b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c
> @@ -48,19 +48,41 @@ virNodeDeviceObjHasCap(const virNodeDeviceObj *dev,
>      while (caps) {
>          if (STREQ(cap, virNodeDevCapTypeToString(caps->data.type))) {
>              return 1;
> -        } else if (caps->data.type == VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_SCSI_HOST) {
> -            if ((STREQ(cap, fc_host_cap) &&
> -                (caps->data.scsi_host.flags &
> -                 VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_HBA_FC_HOST)) ||
> -                (STREQ(cap, vports_cap) &&
> -                (caps->data.scsi_host.flags &
> -                 VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_HBA_VPORT_OPS)))
> -                return 1;
> -        } else if (caps->data.type == VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_PCI_DEV) {
> -            if ((STREQ(cap, mdev_types)) &&
> -                (caps->data.pci_dev.flags &
> -                 VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_PCI_MDEV))
> -                return 1;
> +        } else {
> +            switch (caps->data.type) {
> +            case VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_PCI_DEV:
> +                if ((STREQ(cap, mdev_types)) &&
> +                    (caps->data.pci_dev.flags &
> +                     VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_PCI_MDEV))

Since you are touching this, put this on a single line. It looks very
ugly this way. It also fits into the 80 col boundary, so I don't see a
reaosn for this.

ACK with this adjustment applied to the whole patch.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]