linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: introduce kvm_for_each

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ECA0F15.8010400@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:43:01 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: introduce kvm_for_each_memslot macro

On 11/21/2011 04:40 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:

> (2011/11/21 17:34), Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Do you have any preference for the arguments ordering?
>>>
>>> I think placing the target one, memslot in this case, first is
>>> conventional in
>>> the kernel code, except when we want to place "kvm" or something like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> But in kvm code, there seems to be some difference.
>>
>> You mean for the macro?  Yes, making memslot the first argument is a
>> good idea.  Any difference in kvm code is not intentional.
>>
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Xiao, please change the order if you have no problem.
> 


OK, will change it in the next version, thanks!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/