> On 4 May 2021, at 14:28, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 04.05.2021 15:09, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2021, at 12:48, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 04.05.2021 11:46, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> @@ -451,11 +466,6 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(gnttab_transfer_t);
>>>> * bytes to be copied.
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> -#define _GNTCOPY_source_gref (0)
>>>> -#define GNTCOPY_source_gref (1<<_GNTCOPY_source_gref)
>>>> -#define _GNTCOPY_dest_gref (1)
>>>> -#define GNTCOPY_dest_gref (1<<_GNTCOPY_dest_gref)
>>>> -
>>>> struct gnttab_copy {
>>>> /* IN parameters. */
>>>> struct gnttab_copy_ptr {
>>>> @@ -471,6 +481,12 @@ struct gnttab_copy {
>>>> /* OUT parameters. */
>>>> int16_t status;
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> +#define _GNTCOPY_source_gref (0)
>>>> +#define GNTCOPY_source_gref (1<<_GNTCOPY_source_gref)
>>>> +#define _GNTCOPY_dest_gref (1)
>>>> +#define GNTCOPY_dest_gref (1<<_GNTCOPY_dest_gref)
>>>
>>> Didn't you say you agree with moving this back up some, next to the
>>> field using these?
>>
>> My mistake! I’ll move it in the next patch, did you spot anything else I
>> might have forgot of what we agreed?
>
> No, thanks. I don't think I have any more comments to make on this
> series (once this last aspect got addressed, and assuming no new
> issues get introduced). But to be clear on that side as well - I
> don't think I'm up to actually ack-ing the patch (let alone the
> entire series).
Ok, at least would you mind to do a review by of the patches we discussed
together?
Cheers,
Luca
>
> Jan
