On 12/06/2012 07:21 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Wanlong Gao writes:
>
>> to_vp_device is worth changing to inlined definition.
>
> Why?
OK, I saw your comments, and I dropped this patch already.
Thanks,
Wanlong Gao
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
>
___
Virtu
Stephen Hemminger writes:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:03:27 +0800
> Wanlong Gao wrote:
>
>> to_vp_device is worth changing to inlined definition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao
>> ---
>> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 6 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git
Wanlong Gao writes:
> to_vp_device is worth changing to inlined definition.
Why?
Thanks,
Rusty.
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:03:27 +0800
Wanlong Gao wrote:
> to_vp_device is worth changing to inlined definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 6 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c b/drivers/v
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:03:27PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> to_vp_device is worth changing to inlined definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao
I don't think it's worth it.
The oldest gcc I happened to have around is 4.3.3
which is already smart enough to generate
identical code before and a
to_vp_device is worth changing to inlined definition.
Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao
---
drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c
index e3ecc94..7681fe3 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/v
