On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 09:29 -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > Related: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373725 > > --- > > spice/vd_agent.h | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/spice/vd_agent.h b/spice/vd_agent.h > > index ac22498..3b1f183 100644 > > --- a/spice/vd_agent.h > > +++ b/spice/vd_agent.h > > @@ -269,6 +269,9 @@ typedef struct SPICE_ATTR_PACKED > > VDAgentAnnounceCapabilities { > > #define VD_AGENT_SET_CAPABILITY(caps, index) \ > > { (caps)[(index) / 32] |= (1 << ((index) % 32)); } > > > > +#define VD_AGENT_CLEAR_CAPABILITY(caps, index) \ > > + { (caps)[(index) / 32] &= ~(1 << ((index) % 32)); } > > + > > #include <spice/end-packed.h> > > > > #endif /* _H_VD_AGENT */ > > I would say > > Acked-by: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Honestly I don't think should be a 2/2, just a separate patch. > > The related bug comment for a so generic patch looks a bit weird. true, sorry, it is a leftover > > Would be sensible to have a static inline function instead of > a macro? I did it as a complement to VD_AGENT_SET_CAPABILITY. Do you prefer a function because of the type check ? I don't mind adding it, but I'd keep something like: static inline vd_agent_clear_capability(uint32_t *caps, uint32_t index); #define VD_AGENT_CLEAR_CAPABILITY vd_agent_set_capability > > Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel