From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vfio: Support for no-IOMMU mode Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:30:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1453903474-18807-1-git-send-email-anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <1453905124-28544-1-git-send-email-anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <3176479.ZPvIliTGUP@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F67A95D7 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:31:06 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Thomas, > > Is it possible (is it better) to declare these functions with vfio_dma_= func_t? >=20 > Yeah, sure. Or maybe the other way around - maybe we could do away with > the typedef. I'll go for the former though. No, we can't declare the functions with a function pointer. At least I don'= t see any obvious way to do that without incurring multiple declarations co= mpile error. So I'll leave it as forward declarations. Of course, the other= alternative is to put the array below the functions and make them static, = to avoid forward declarations, but I think it's much clearer the way it is = now. Thanks, Anatoly