ok, thanks.
Dan Smith wrote:
SH That's sucky... yeah i would say a comment, though of course it
SH could be one of those cases where everyone but me already knows...
Here's a nice fix brought to us by Mr. Lynch...
___
Containers mailing list
Quoting Dan Smith (da...@us.ibm.com):
SH #define CR_COPY_ARRAY(op, SAVE, LIVE, count)
\
SH do {\
SH __must_be_array(SAVE); \
SH
+
+/*
+ * Copy @count items from @LIVE to @SAVE if op is CR_CPT (otherwise,
+ * copy in the reverse direction)
+ */
+#define CR_COPY_ARRAY(op, SAVE, LIVE, count)
\
+do {\
+
SH That's sucky... yeah i would say a comment, though of course it
SH could be one of those cases where everyone but me already knows...
Here's a nice fix brought to us by Mr. Lynch...
--
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: da...@us.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Dan Smith da...@us.ibm.com
Quoting Oren Laadan (or...@cs.columbia.edu):
From: Dan Smith da...@us.ibm.com
As suggested by Dave[1], this provides us a way to make the copy-in and
copy-out processes symmetric. CR_COPY_ARRAY() provides us a way to do
the same thing but for arrays. It's not critical, but it helps us
