Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 06/18] vmx: Add some helper functions for Posted-Interrupts

["Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 10:40 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Tian, Kevin; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] vmx: Add some helper functions for
> Posted-Interrupts
> 
> >>> On 25.08.15 at 03:57, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel