>>> On 06.06.19 at 13:19, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org] On Behalf Of >> Paul Durrant >> Sent: 06 June 2019 12:11 >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org] On Behalf >> > Of Roger Pau Monne >> > Sent: 06 June 2019 10:02 >> > --- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h >> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h >> > @@ -34,7 +34,8 @@ >> > #define PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) ((bdf) & 0xff) >> > #define PCI_BDF(b,d,f) ((((b) & 0xff) << 8) | PCI_DEVFN(d,f)) >> > #define PCI_BDF2(b,df) ((((b) & 0xff) << 8) | ((df) & 0xff)) >> > -#define PCI_SBDF(s,b,d,f) ((((s) & 0xffff) << 16) | PCI_BDF(b,d,f)) >> > +#define PCI_SBDF(s,b,d,f) \ >> > + ((pci_sbdf_t) { .sbdf = (((s) & 0xffff) << 16) | PCI_BDF(b,d,f) }) > > Wouldn't this be better coded along the lines of... > > ((pci_sbdf_t) { .seg = s, .bus = b, .dev = d, .fn = f })
No, as per the prior version's discussion: Older gcc won't cope with this. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
