From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/22] xen/arm: ITS: Add virtual ITS driver Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:14:44 +0100 Message-ID: <55BB4A94.9090204@citrix.com> References: <1437995524-19772-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <1437995524-19772-8-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <55B7B820.5020708@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Vijay Kilari Cc: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , Prasun Kapoor , manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Vijaya Kumar K List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Vijay, On 31/07/15 07:49, Vijay Kilari wrote: >>> +static int vits_vitt_entry(struct domain *d, uint32_t devid, >>> + uint32_t event, struct vitt *entry, bool_t set) >>> +{ >>> + struct vdevice_table dt_entry; >>> + paddr_t vitt_entry; >>> + uint64_t offset; >>> + >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct vitt) != 8); >>> + >>> + if ( vits_get_vdevice_entry(d, devid, &dt_entry) ) >>> + { >>> + printk(XENLOG_G_ERR >>> + "d%"PRId32": vITS: Fail to get vdevice for vdev 0x%"PRIx32"\n", >> >> s/vdev/vdevid/ > > I think, to manage within 80 char, I used just "vdev" 80 character in the source file I guess? If so, you should avoid this kind of cutting just for coding style benefits. We are not so strict on it. > >> >>> + d->domain_id, devid); >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* dt_entry is validated in vits_get_vdevice_entry */ >> >> s/is validated/has been validated/ >> >> [..] >> >>> +int vits_set_vitt_entry(struct domain *d, uint32_t devid, >>> + uint32_t event, struct vitt *entry) >> >> Same remark as vits_set_vdevice_entry. > > I have made non-static for compilation purpose. I will try to introduce > this in the patch where it is used. But it is more logical to have this > in this patch. Anyway I forget to make it static in later patches Having introduce static here would have avoid forgetting the static later... It's just a matter of how you split your series. For instance, if you would have merge this patch with #8, making this function non-static wouldn't have been necessary. Regards, -- Julien Grall