2017-02-17 10:30+0100, Cornelia Huck:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100
> Radim Krčmář wrote:
>
>> kvm_make_request was a wrapper that added barriers to bit_set and
>> kvm_check_request did the same for bit_test and bit_check, but the name
>> was not very obvious and we were also lacking opera
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:49:35 +0100
Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100
> > Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > > +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > Should we make req unsign
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100
> Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> Should we make req unsigned long as well, so that it matches the bit
> api even more?
The bit
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100
Radim Krčmář wrote:
> kvm_make_request was a wrapper that added barriers to bit_set and
> kvm_check_request did the same for bit_test and bit_check, but the name
> was not very obvious and we were also lacking operations that cover
> bit_test and bit_clear, whic
kvm_make_request was a wrapper that added barriers to bit_set and
kvm_check_request did the same for bit_test and bit_check, but the name
was not very obvious and we were also lacking operations that cover
bit_test and bit_clear, which resulted in an inconsistent use.
The renaming:
kvm_request_s
5 matches
Mail list logo
