Re: [PATCH 00/18] x86: more bool_t to bool cleanup

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:19:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > I do try to be as careful as possible with the code -- I don't think I
> > ever broke the hypervisor too badly, if at all, in my recent work.  Now
> > I've mostly figured out what you and Andrew like patch-wise. If you
> > think of anything that can be done better, do let me know.
> 
> ... while I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything, let alone
> breaking the hypervisor, there were a few things which neither
> would have resulted in breakage nor would have required mind
> reading. Best example probably is when you touched definitions but
> let declarations alone.
> 

Right. I make no excuse for the mistakes I made. I will be more careful
next time.

> > And frankly I didn't mean / want to do the cleanup in the first place --
> > I wanted to do another thing: PV in PVH. But the code as-is is just not
> > in the right shape to work with. As I went along, it gradually grew into
> > a useful project of its own right. To be clear, this is not to blame
> > anyone involved in the past or now. The constraints then were different
> > from the ones we have now.  I've foolishly signed myself up to this big
> > project because I think it is worth it. :-)
> 
> Ah, I didn't realize that was the background even here; I did assume
> that to be the background for the PV split work.
> 

It annoyed me a bit to see the code like that, but I can cope with the
inconsistency.

The rest is better to discuss during the summit.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel