On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:20:24PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/26/20 4:55 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 5/19/20 7:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> Passing around both BDRVNVMeState and NVMeQueuePair is unwiedly. Reduce
>
> Oh, and typo "unwieldy".
Thanks, will fix!
On 5/26/20 4:55 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/19/20 7:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Passing around both BDRVNVMeState and NVMeQueuePair is unwiedly. Reduce
Oh, and typo "unwieldy".
>> the number of function arguments by keeping the BDRVNVMeState pointer in
>> NVMeQueuePair. This
On 5/19/20 7:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Passing around both BDRVNVMeState and NVMeQueuePair is unwiedly. Reduce
> the number of function arguments by keeping the BDRVNVMeState pointer in
> NVMeQueuePair. This will come in handly when a BH is introduced in a
> later patch and only one argument
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 06:11:37PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Passing around both BDRVNVMeState and NVMeQueuePair is unwiedly. Reduce
> the number of function arguments by keeping the BDRVNVMeState pointer in
> NVMeQueuePair. This will come in handly when a BH is introduced in a
> later patch
Passing around both BDRVNVMeState and NVMeQueuePair is unwiedly. Reduce
the number of function arguments by keeping the BDRVNVMeState pointer in
NVMeQueuePair. This will come in handly when a BH is introduced in a
later patch and only one argument can be passed to it.
Signed-off-by: Stefan
