From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper API to setup ring and enable mem_access" Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:42:59 +0100 Message-ID: <21425.23379.795171.801716@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <1403882455.3169.72.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tamas Lengyel Cc: Aravindh Puthiyaparambil , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 ? > 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.