On 27/07/2015 15:40, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
temps[dst].next_copy = temps[src].next_copy;
temps[dst].prev_copy = src;
temps[temps[dst].next_copy].prev_copy = dst;
temps[src].next_copy = dst;
Note that the patch doesn't change this part, it's already
On 27/07/2015 12:56, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
temps[dst].next_copy = temps[src].next_copy;
temps[dst].prev_copy = src;
temps[temps[dst].next_copy].prev_copy = dst;
temps[src].next_copy = dst;
This is:
dst-next = src-next;
dst-prev = src;
On 2015-07-27 13:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 27/07/2015 12:56, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
temps[dst].next_copy = temps[src].next_copy;
temps[dst].prev_copy = src;
temps[temps[dst].next_copy].prev_copy = dst;
temps[src].next_copy = dst;
Note that the
Instead of using an enum which could be either a copy or a const, track
them separately. Constants are tracked through a bool. Copies are
tracked by initializing temp's next_copy and prev_copy to itself,
allowing to simplify the code a bit.
Cc: Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net
Signed-off-by:
