On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:56:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 22/09/20 08:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >> It's certainly a good idea but it's quite verbose.
> > >>
> > >> What about using atomic__* as the prefix? It
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 04:29:10PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/20 11:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Thanks for the review! Your feedback prompted me to do this more
systematically. I fixed the command-lines and published a diff of just
the manual changes I made on top of the mechanical
On 9/22/20 10:17 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:56:08PM -0700, no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
>> ERROR: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while
>> loop
>> #2968: FILE: include/qemu/atomic.h:152:
>> +#define qemu_atomic_rcu_read__nocheck(ptr,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:56:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/09/20 08:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> It's certainly a good idea but it's quite verbose.
> >>
> >> What about using atomic__* as the prefix? It is not very common in QEMU
> >> but there are some cases (and I cannot think
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:56:08PM -0700, no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
> ERROR: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop
> #2968: FILE: include/qemu/atomic.h:152:
> +#define qemu_atomic_rcu_read__nocheck(ptr, valptr) \
> __atomic_load(ptr, valptr,
On 22.09.20 08:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/09/20 08:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> It's certainly a good idea but it's quite verbose.
>>>
>>> What about using atomic__* as the prefix? It is not very common in QEMU
>>> but there are some cases (and I cannot think of anything better).
>>
>>
On 22/09/20 08:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> It's certainly a good idea but it's quite verbose.
>>
>> What about using atomic__* as the prefix? It is not very common in QEMU
>> but there are some cases (and I cannot think of anything better).
>
> aqomic_*, lol :)
Actually qatomic_ would be a
On 22.09.20 08:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/09/20 18:23, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> clang's C11 atomic_fetch_*() functions only take a C11 atomic type
>> pointer argument. QEMU uses direct types (int, etc) and this causes a
>> compiler error when a QEMU code calls these functions in a source
On 21/09/20 18:23, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> clang's C11 atomic_fetch_*() functions only take a C11 atomic type
> pointer argument. QEMU uses direct types (int, etc) and this causes a
> compiler error when a QEMU code calls these functions in a source file
> that also included via a system header
On 9/21/20 11:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
clang's C11 atomic_fetch_*() functions only take a C11 atomic type
pointer argument. QEMU uses direct types (int, etc) and this causes a
compiler error when a QEMU code calls these functions in a source file
that also included via a system header
10 matches
Mail list logo
