Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] arm/monitor vm-events: Implement guest-request support

[Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/26/2016 2:14 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 02/26/2016 02:05 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
> > On 2/26/2016 1:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 26.02.16 at 12:07, <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/altp2m.h
> > > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/altp2m.h
> > > > @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@
> > > >     * this program; If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> > > >     */
> > > >    -#ifndef _X86_ALTP2M_H
> > > > -#define _X86_ALTP2M_H
> > > > +#ifndef __ASM_X86_ALTP2M_H
> > > > +#define __ASM_X86_ALTP2M_H
> > > Unrelated change? (No need to undo, but please don't mix such
> > > into patches especially when they are quite large already anyway.)
> > Noted.
> >
> > > > @@ -33,5 +33,9 @@ void altp2m_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v);
> > > >    void altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v);
> > > >    void altp2m_vcpu_reset(struct vcpu *v);
> > > >    -#endif /* _X86_ALTP2M_H */
> > > > +static inline uint16_t altp2m_vcpu_idx(struct vcpu *v)
> > > const
> > 'const', as in:
> >
> > +static inline const uint16_t altp2m_vcpu_idx(struct vcpu *v)
> Since there's no functional difference between returning const uint6_t
> and plain uint16_t, I assume that Jan meant "const struct vcpu *v".
I thought the functional difference would be when calling:

uint16_t idx = altp2m_vcpu_idx(v); // => can subsequently modify idx
const uint16_t idx = altp2m_vcpu_idx(v); // => cannot subsequently 
modify idx (unless const is casted to non-const)
> Cheers,
> Razvan
Corneliu.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel