> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 10:40 PM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: Andrew Cooper; Tian, Kevin; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] vmx: Add some helper functions for > Posted-Interrupts > > >>> 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.
I am sorry, I don't quite understand it. Do you mean: the bitfield defined in previous patch is pointless, or using the bitfield here? Thanks, Feng > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
