>>> On 25.08.15 at 03:57, <feng...@intel.com> wrote:
> @@ -121,11 +122,31 @@ static inline int pi_test_and_clear_on(struct pi_desc
> *pi_desc)
> return test_and_clear_bit(POSTED_INTR_ON, &pi_desc->control);
> }
>
> +static inline int pi_test_on(struct pi_desc *pi_desc)
> +{
> + return test_bit(POSTED_INTR_ON, &pi_desc->control);
> +}
For this and ...
> +static inline int pi_test_sn(struct pi_desc *pi_desc)
> +{
> + return test_bit(POSTED_INTR_SN, &pi_desc->control);
> +}
... this I wonder whether using the bitfield you defined in the
previous patch wouldn't allow the compiler more freedom in
how to carry this out.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
