On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:37:53PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:52:48AM +0800, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote:
> > When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
> > calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
> > c
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:52:48AM +0800, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote:
> When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
> calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
> calls are replaced with tb_page_remove. There is no need to have a general
[CC'ed qemu-trivial]
ping?
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:52:48AM +0800, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote:
> When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
> calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
> calls are replaced with tb_page_remove. T
On 20 November 2012 23:52, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote:
> When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
> calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
> calls are replaced with tb_page_remove. There is no need to have a general
> tb_remove.
When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
calls are replaced with tb_page_remove. There is no need to have a general
tb_remove. Omit passing the third parameter and using tb1->phys_hash_next
