From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: introduce kvm_for_each_memslot macro
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:43:01 +0800
Message-ID: <4ECA0F15.8010400@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <4EC6226B.3080408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EC622F8.30005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EC8E2D3.1080804@redhat.com> <4EC9A136.7080004@oss.ntt.co.jp> <4ECA0D00.8080708@redhat.com> <4ECA0E87.4070909@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4ECA0E87.4070909@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

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!