Re: [PATCH]3/5 Using kvm_arch prefix to define functions, and replace

Avi Kivity
2007-11-12T09:50:54Z

Carsten Otte wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> For the present discussion, I agree, but in general we should be
>> prepared to accept some no-op callouts.
>>
>
> Oh sure, I don't mind those. We'll have plenty of them, where other
> architectures will need to take action and s390 won't. It's just that
> in the current location, the common code would do
>
> common_func() {
> loop {
> arch_callback();
> }
> }
> And I suggested to make the whole thing a callback.
>

Ah, agreed.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function