On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp) <
aravindp@cisco.com> wrote:

> >>      > I agree with your criticism, TBH.  Aravindh/Ian, can we rename
> this
> >>      > function ?
> >>
> >>      I have no objection to some other name.
> >
> >How about xc_enable_mem_event()? If that is fine, I will submit a patch.
> >
> >>A question regarding renaming the xc_mem_event_enable function. The
> >>public xenctrl.h clearly says
> >>
> >>/**
> >> * mem_event operations. Internal use only.
> >> */
> >>
> >>There are only three of these, xc_mem_event_control,
> >>xc_mem_event_memop and xc_mem_event_enable. Wouldn't it make
> >more
> >>sense to just exclude these functions from the public header and move
> >them
> >>to xc_private.h? Why have internal functions in the public header?
> >
> >I too think these can be moved to the xc_private.h. IanC / IanJ, what are
> your
> >thoughts on doing this?
>
> Forgot to add that if this move is done then I am assuming the rename is
> not required. Correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Aravindh
>

With relocating these functions to xc_private.h the issue I had would be
solved so no renaming would be required. My patch for doing that is on its
way momentarily.

Tamas