From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36075) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1aao-0000mA-0e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 11:03:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1aak-0004hQ-7m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 11:03:14 -0400 References: <1477607317-27817-1-git-send-email-duanj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1477607317-27817-3-git-send-email-duanj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161028190657.GB2173@work-vm> <0cd200a6-3ded-0e02-1b8b-fbbf5c0bee03@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <88bb646d-39aa-e439-4b30-2c38777a4b56@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <56fd391c-0723-6bfa-e0fa-ac68af8119c9@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:02:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <88bb646d-39aa-e439-4b30-2c38777a4b56@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [QEMU PATCH v9 2/3] migration: migrate QTAILQ List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Halil Pasic , Jianjun Duan , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: veroniabahaa@gmail.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com, blauwirbel@gmail.com, amit.shah@redhat.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com, kwolf@redhat.com, dmitry@daynix.com, rth@twiddle.net, leon.alrae@imgtec.com, aurelien@aurel32.net, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au On 31/10/2016 14:10, Halil Pasic wrote: > I think this got overly complicated. I agree. :) > Here is a little patch on > top of your stuff which gets rid of 15 lines and IMHO simplifies > things quite a bit. What do you think?=20 >=20 > It is based on/inspired by Dave's proposal with the dummy stuff.=20 >=20 > Did not address the typos though. I still prefer my field_at_offset proposal, but I'm obviously biased. Squashing your changes on top of 2/3 is fine too. But this change makes little sense: > */ > #define QTAILQ_RAW_NEXT(elm, entry) = \ > - (*field_at_offset(elm, entry + QTAILQ_NEXT_OFFSET, void **)) > + ((field_at_offset(elm, entry, QTAILQRawEntry *)->tqe_next)) > #define QTAILQ_RAW_PREV(elm, entry) = \ > - (*field_at_offset(elm, entry + QTAILQ_PREV_OFFSET, void ***)) > + (field_at_offset(elm, entry, QTAILQRawEntry *)->tqe_prev) > + field_at_offset seems to be out of place. Paolo