On 08/07/2015 11:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.07.15 at 11:07, <julien.gr...@citrix.com> wrote:
On 08/07/2015 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
@@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ int release_guest_irq(struct domain *d,
void arch_move_irqs(struct vcpu *v);
+#define arch_evtchn_bind_pirq(d, pirq) ((void)((d) + (pirq)))
+
This addition is here in order to ensure that d and pirq are evaluated,
right?
Sure.
If so, I didn't find it obvious to understand. Why didn't you use a
static inline? Or maybe add a comment explicitly say this is not
implemented.
A static inline could be used in this case, yes. But I see no
significant advantages. As to the comment - it is implemented,
it's just a no-op. And stating that it is a no-op would be
redundant with it obviously being so by looking at it.
It's not so obvious as I asked about it.
The first thing I saw was (d) + (pirq) and I though : "Why do we want to
add a domain with a pirq?". I only see after the (void) and it just
because I remembered we talked about similar case a year ago.
Having a comment doesn't hurt and help the comprehension.
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
