>>> On 27.06.16 at 13:11, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > On June 27, 2016 4:17 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> >>> On 24.06.16 at 07:51, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: >> > @@ -98,7 +104,13 @@ void disable_ats_device(int seg, int bus, int >> > devfn) >> >> For symmetry reasons this function would also get converted to taking const >> struct pci_dev *. >> > > What about ' struct pci_dev *', without const?
Sure - since the other one apparently can't have the const added, this one doesn't need to either (but please nevertheless do add it it that's actually possible without having to cast away constness somewhere. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
