>>> On 03.12.18 at 22:03, <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > To be used in constant initializations of mfn_t variables, such as: > > static mfn_t node = mfn_init(MM_ADDR); > > It is necessary because static inline functions cannot be used as static > initializers.
We had been at this point once (quite some time ago), and got away without such an addition. Did you try to find that old discussion? Are there any new reasons to have such a construct? Do you need this for other than setting a value to INVALID_MFN, in which case INVALID_MFN_INITIALIZER ought to be suitable? This is not to say I'm entirely opposed. If we were to have such a construct, I wonder though whether mfn_init() is suitable as a name. Simply MFN() perhaps, and then also consistently have GFN() and DFN()? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
