On 13/05/15 11:09, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>> b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>> index 58efdb9..f4604db 100644
>> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_save_x86_hvm.c
>> @@ -184,7 +184,13 @@ static int x86_hvm_start_of_stream(struct xc_sr_context
>> *ctx)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int x86_hvm_end_of_stream(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
>> +static int x86_hvm_start_of_checkpoint(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> + /* no-op */
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int x86_hvm_end_of_checkpoint(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
>> {
>> int rc;
>>
>> @@ -209,7 +215,7 @@ static int x86_hvm_end_of_stream(struct xc_sr_context
>> *ctx)
>> if ( rc )
>> return rc;
>>
>> - return rc;
>> + return 0;
>> }
> Nit: It looks like this boils down to:
>
> if ( rc != 0 ) return rc; else return 0;
>
> Why not just return rc and be done with it?
>
> (Just skimming through, no other comments ATM)
Cleaner when adding new hunks in, which other patches do.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
