On 2/26/2016 2:14 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
On 02/26/2016 02:05 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
On 2/26/2016 1:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.02.16 at 12:07, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/altp2m.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/altp2m.h
@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@
* this program; If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*/
-#ifndef _X86_ALTP2M_H
-#define _X86_ALTP2M_H
+#ifndef __ASM_X86_ALTP2M_H
+#define __ASM_X86_ALTP2M_H
Unrelated change? (No need to undo, but please don't mix such
into patches especially when they are quite large already anyway.)
Noted.
@@ -33,5 +33,9 @@ void altp2m_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v);
void altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v);
void altp2m_vcpu_reset(struct vcpu *v);
-#endif /* _X86_ALTP2M_H */
+static inline uint16_t altp2m_vcpu_idx(struct vcpu *v)
const
'const', as in:
+static inline const uint16_t altp2m_vcpu_idx(struct vcpu *v)
Since there's no functional difference between returning const uint6_t
and plain uint16_t, I assume that Jan meant "const struct vcpu *v".
I thought the functional difference would be when calling:
uint16_t idx = altp2m_vcpu_idx(v); // => can subsequently modify idx
const uint16_t idx = altp2m_vcpu_idx(v); // => cannot subsequently
modify idx (unless const is casted to non-const)
Cheers,
Razvan
Corneliu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
