On June 27, 2016 11:19 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> On 27.06.16 at 13:11, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > > On June 27, 2016 4:17 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 24.06.16 at 07:51, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > @@ -98,7 +104,13 @@ void disable_ats_device(int seg, int bus, int > >> > devfn) > >> > >> For symmetry reasons this function would also get converted to taking > >> const struct pci_dev *. > >> > > > > What about ' struct pci_dev *', without const? > > Sure - since the other one apparently can't have the const added, this one > doesn't need to either (but please nevertheless do add it it that's actually > possible without having to cast away constness somewhere. >
Indeed.. -Quan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
