On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 05:18 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > does it make a sense to keep the function (or is it to avoid the
> > header inclusion)? What about using the macro directly ?
> >
> > Pavel
> >
>
>
> The macro could be misleading as it refers to the agent.
> Also macro could have side effects and usually are less type safe..
ok
>
> But a simple inline function as
>
> static inline gboolean test_capability(const uint32_t *caps, int
> num_caps, uint32_t cap)
> {
> return VD_AGENT_HAS_CAPABILITY(caps, num_caps, cap);
> }
>
looks good
> could work too. I don't think header inclusion is a bit problem in
> red-channel.h.
>
> Frediano
Thanks,
Pavel
>
> > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 09:12 +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > server/red-channel.c | 7 +------
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/server/red-channel.c b/server/red-channel.c
> > > index 927e6e9..27c8632 100644
> > > --- a/server/red-channel.c
> > > +++ b/server/red-channel.c
> > > @@ -331,12 +331,7 @@ void
> > > red_channel_register_client_cbs(RedChannel
> > > *channel, const ClientCbs *clien
> > >
> > > int test_capability(const uint32_t *caps, int num_caps,
> > > uint32_t
> > > cap)
> > > {
> > > - uint32_t index = cap / 32;
> > > - if (num_caps < index + 1) {
> > > - return FALSE;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - return (caps[index] & (1 << (cap % 32))) != 0;
> > > + return VD_AGENT_HAS_CAPABILITY(caps, num_caps, cap);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void add_capability(uint32_t **caps, int *num_caps,
> > > uint32_t
> > > cap)
> > >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel