On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:36:25 +0200 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:08:19 +0200 > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > [..] > > Two things: > - The call path goes from the vcdev to the vdev, then back to the vcdev > and then to the cdev. Going from the vcdev to the cdev directly > eliminates the roundtrip via the vdev, which I think does not add > anything. > - I prefer > variable = function_returning_a_pointer(...); > over > function_setting_a_variable(..., variable); > The latter obscures the fact that we change the value of the > variable, unless named very obviously. > I understand. Here it's especially bad because what looks like a function is actually a macro so it ain't even fn(..., &variable) but just fn(..., variable). I guess I'm a bit desensitized towards the latter because of my c++ background. > > > > I will change this for v4 as you requested. Again sorry for missing it! > > np, can happen. Thanks for the explanation. I will use ccw_device_dma_zalloc() directly in v4. Regards, Halil _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
