Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 04:20:24AM +0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:54:44PM +0800, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>> +static inline void virtfn_bdf(struct pci_dev *dev, int id, u8 *busnr, u8
>>> *devfn)
>>> +{
>>> + u16 bdf;
>>> +
>>> + bdf = (dev->bus->number << 8) + dev->devfn +
>>> + dev->sriov->offset + dev->sriov->stride * id;
>>> + *busnr = bdf >> 8;
>>> + *devfn = bdf & 0xff;
>>> +}
>> I find the interface here a bit clunky -- a function returning void
>> while having two OUT parameters. How about this variation on the theme
>> (viewers are encouraged to come up with their own preferred
>> implementations and interfaces):
>>
>> static inline __pure u16 virtfn_bdf(struct pci_dev *dev, int id)
>> {
>> return (dev->bus->number << 8) + dev->devfn + dev->sriov->offset +
>> dev->sriov->stride * id;
>> }
>>
>> #define VIRT_BUS(dev, id) (virtfn_bdf(dev, id) >> 8)
>> #define VIRT_DEVFN(dev, id) (virtfn_bdf(dev, id) & 0xff)
>>
>> We rely on GCC to do CSE and not actually invoke virtfn_bdf more than
>> once.
>
> Yes, that's a good idea. Will replace that function with macros.
That's the opposite of most changes lately. I.e., functions (with
typechecking) are preferred.
--
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
