>>> On 08.07.15 at 11:07, <julien.gr...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 08/07/2015 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h >> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ int release_guest_irq(struct domain *d, >> >> void arch_move_irqs(struct vcpu *v); >> >> +#define arch_evtchn_bind_pirq(d, pirq) ((void)((d) + (pirq))) >> + > > This addition is here in order to ensure that d and pirq are evaluated, > right?
Sure. > If so, I didn't find it obvious to understand. Why didn't you use a > static inline? Or maybe add a comment explicitly say this is not > implemented. A static inline could be used in this case, yes. But I see no significant advantages. As to the comment - it is implemented, it's just a no-op. And stating that it is a no-op would be redundant with it obviously being so by looking at it. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
