From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH] xl: suppress suspend/resume functions on platforms which do not support it. Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:54:29 +0000 Message-ID: <1392224069.13563.97.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> References: <1392215257-26993-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> <20140212152134.GA20090@aepfle.de> <1392220651.13563.86.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <52FBA623.2010809@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52FBA623.2010809@eu.citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Olaf Hering , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 16:49 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > On 02/12/2014 03:57 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 16:21 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 12, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> > >>> #define LIBXL_HAVE_SIGCHLD_SHARING 1 > >>> > >>> +/* > >>> + * LIBXL_HAVE_NO_SUSPEND_RESUME > >> Think positive? > >> Make that HAVE_FEATURE and define it on x86. > > Could do -- anyone got any strong feeling one way or the other? > > I'm a fan of consistency, so "HAVE_SUSPEND" sounds a little bit better > to me. But either way is fine. Right. I think I'll flip it then, it does make more logical sense that way. Ian.