From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46868) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alvxv-0003y2-K8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 06:06:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alvxq-000208-LQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 06:06:07 -0400 Received: from barbershop.grep.be ([89.106.240.122]:47268) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alvxq-0001zs-G1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 06:06:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:43:22 +0200 From: Wouter Verhelst Message-ID: <20160401094322.GI25514@grep.be> References: <1459448132-52364-1-git-send-email-alex@alex.org.uk> <20160401075933.GA25514@grep.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH 2/2] Correct definition of NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Bligh Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 10:32:50AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > #define NBD_CMD_MASK_COMMAND 0x0000ffff > -#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA (1<<16) > +#define NBD_CMD_SHIFT (16) > +#define NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA ((1 << 0) << NBD_CMD_SHIFT) That works too, I suppose. However, like I said, I need to clean this up anyway. I thought your "will you take a patch" was going to do that, but if not, I'll get around to doing it myself at some point... -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too. -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12