From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Petersson, Mats" Subject: RE: hvm_init_ap_contexts Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:25:41 +0100 Message-ID: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E1A01@sefsexmb1.amd.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser , PUCCETTI Armand , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com=20 > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of=20 > Keir Fraser > Sent: 01 March 2007 17:00 > To: PUCCETTI Armand; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] hvm_init_ap_contexts >=20 > The return keyword is pointless here, but allowed. Agreed - but removing the return keyword would make sure that someone looking at the code doesn't try to figure out what is being returned by the original function - and since there's nothing being returned, not using a return keyword makes the code "clearer".=20 My personal opinion, of course.=20 -- Mats >=20 > -- Keir >=20 > On 1/3/07 16:42, "PUCCETTI Armand" wrote: >=20 > > Why is there an argument returned in the function below (of hvm.h), > > knowing that there is void? > >=20 > > static inline void > > hvm_init_ap_context(struct vcpu_guest_context *ctxt, > > int vcpuid, int trampoline_vector) > > { > > return hvm_funcs.init_ap_context(ctxt, vcpuid,=20 > trampoline_vector); > > } >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >=20 >=20 >=20