Re: [PATCH 00/12] x86: Cleanup idt, gdt/ldt/tss structs

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

Ingo Molnar wrote:

Small detail, the syntactic form you chose:

+       if (!cpu->arch.idt[num].p)

is not very readable because it's not obvious at first sight that ".p" intends to mean "present bit". If then idt[num].present would have been the better choice - but it's even better to not do bitfields at all but an idt_present(desc *) helper inline function.

There is, however, some benefit to use the field names that are in the official documentation, which include P.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Site Home]     [Audio]     [Hams]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Memory]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux