* Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-08-01 17:16:37 +0200]:
> > > On 08/01/2017 09:57 AM, Dong Jia Shi wrote: > [..] > > --- a/hw/s390x/css.c > > +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c > > @@ -1745,10 +1745,10 @@ int css_do_rchp(uint8_t cssid, uint8_t chpid) > > } > > > > /* We don't really use a channel path, so we're done here. */ > > - css_queue_crw(CRW_RSC_CHP, CRW_ERC_INIT, > > + css_queue_crw(CRW_RSC_CHP, CRW_ERC_INIT, 1, > > channel_subsys.max_cssid > 0 ? 1 : 0, chpid); > > if (channel_subsys.max_cssid > 0) { > > - css_queue_crw(CRW_RSC_CHP, CRW_ERC_INIT, 0, real_cssid << 8); > > + css_queue_crw(CRW_RSC_CHP, CRW_ERC_INIT, 1, 0, real_cssid << 8); > > } > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -2028,7 +2028,8 @@ void css_subch_assign(uint8_t cssid, uint8_t ssid, > > uint16_t schid, > > } > > } > > > > -void css_queue_crw(uint8_t rsc, uint8_t erc, int chain, uint16_t rsid) > > +void css_queue_crw(uint8_t rsc, uint8_t erc, int solicited, > > + int chain, uint16_t rsid) > > I think you could make the parameters solicited and chain bool (AFAIU > they are conceptually bool) for clearer semantic. If you go with that > you could also get rid of the superfluous ternary operator ( we have > stuff like some_cond ? 1 : 0 for the chain parameter in more than > one place. > > Btw. I find bool flags easy to mix up and difficult to read. I have no better > idea how to write this (in C) though. I was considering throwing chain and > solicited together into a single flags parameter, but looking at the client > code > it does not look like a good idea. I think I just need to get used to differet tastes. ;) > > Besides the cosmetic considerations above LGTM Thanks! -- Dong Jia Shi