svn commit: r186252 - head/sys/kern

[Garrett Cooper]

On Dec 27, 2008, at 13:47, "Antoine Brodin" <antoine at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 10:19 PM,  <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 27/12/2008, Antoine Brodin <antoine at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org>  
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Modified: head/sys/kern/subr_param.c
>>> [snip]
>>>> +enum VM_GUEST { VM_GUEST_NO, VM_GUEST_VM, VM_GUEST_XEN };
>>>> +
>>> [snip]
>>>> -               hz = detect_virtual() ? HZ_VM : HZ;
>>>> +               hz = vm_guest > VM_GUEST_NO ? HZ_VM : HZ;
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>
>>> Could you change VM_GUEST_NO / VM_GUEST_VM / VM_GUEST_XEN to a  
>>> #define
>>> or explicitly initialize them?
>>> The magnitude comparison between vm_guest and VM_GUEST_NO looks like
>>> gratuitous obfuscation.
>>
>> I think that the "enum" type is very well defined and its behaviour
>> widely known so it is not necessary to break it into #defines. Would
>> you be happy if I explicitly initalized the first member of the enum
>> to signify its values are important?
>>
>> enum VM_GUEST { VM_GUEST_NO = 0, VM_GUEST_VM, VM_GUEST_XEN };
>>
>
> I would be happy if you initialized explicitly the 3 values.
> You use these values as an index in the vm_guest_sysctl_names array
> and you compare them in init_param1() so I think it's better to be  
> explicit.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine

Ivan's suggestion explicitly defines the first value and implicitly  
defines the next couple indices. Is there really anything more you're  
looking for in terms of coverage?
-Garrett