From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] virtio: add 1.0 support
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:37:42 +0100
Message-ID: <5347304.e6a00tL54Q@xps13>
References: <1452832571-6156-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1453191125-26335-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1453191125-26335-9-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31EA3005
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:38:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b14so75948082wmb.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:38:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1453191125-26335-9-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-01-19 16:12, Yuanhan Liu:
> +#define IO_READ_DEF(nr_bits, type)             \
> +static inline type                             \
> +io_read##nr_bits(type *addr)                   \
> +{                                              \
> +       return *(volatile type *)addr;          \
> +}
> +
> +#define IO_WRITE_DEF(nr_bits, type)            \
> +static inline void                             \
> +io_write##nr_bits(type val, type *addr)                \
> +{                                              \
> +       *(volatile type *)addr = val;           \
> +}
> +
> +IO_READ_DEF (8, uint8_t)
> +IO_WRITE_DEF(8, uint8_t)
> +
> +IO_READ_DEF (16, uint16_t)
> +IO_WRITE_DEF(16, uint16_t)
> +
> +IO_READ_DEF (32, uint32_t)
> +IO_WRITE_DEF(32, uint32_t)

Yes you can do this.
But not sure you should.

> +static inline void
> +io_write64_twopart(uint64_t val, uint32_t *lo, uint32_t *hi)
> +{
> +       io_write32(val & ((1ULL << 32) - 1), lo);
> +       io_write32(val >> 32,                hi);
> +}

When debugging this code, how GDB behave?
How to find the definition of io_write32() with grep or simple editors?