From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper API to
 setup ring and enable mem_access"
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:44:36 +0100
Message-ID: <1404132276.14488.41.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
References: <CAErYnsjqjYZx=b=ZvrWh3eHGxHF7pWkSv_0HzscZApZMcSuKKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1403882455.3169.72.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAErYnsgxODtiWNR2y+dmQooHahd9s=X+aFr3pZik8n9jV6_9Zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<21425.23379.795171.801716@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <21425.23379.795171.801716@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Tamas Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>, Aravindh Puthiyaparambil <aravindp@cisco.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 13:42 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tamas Lengyel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper API to setup ring and enable mem_access""):
> > 
> >     > Now with this function being reintroduced, it becomes more complicated
> >     > to determine which version of the mem_access API does Xen actually
> >     > provide. A #define indicating mem_access API version would nicely
> >     > overcome this issue, or  naming xc_mem_event_enable something else.
> > 
> >     Doesn't configure support checking for functions with a given prototype?
> > 
> > It does but in a very hacky way, essentially trying to compile code where the
> > function is being called with different prototypes. We can work around it but a
> > clean solution would be preferred at some point.
> 
> I agree with your criticism, TBH.  Aravindh/Ian, can we rename this
> function ?

I have no objection to some other name.

> > This is now a rather opaque behavior of libxc. As it is not merged
> > into master I guess I will just submit a patch for it..
> 
> Yes.  I think this would be the right approach to addressing both of
> these problems.  (Please send two patches, one for each.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian.