Re: [PATCH V7 12/12] xen/vm_event: Add RESUME option to vm_event_op domctl

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 26.03.15 at 12:29, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12.03.15 at 18:58, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/public/memory.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/memory.h
>>> @@ -385,11 +385,10 @@ typedef struct xen_mem_paging_op xen_mem_paging_op_t;
>>>  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mem_paging_op_t);
>>>
>>>  #define XENMEM_access_op                    21
>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_resume             0
>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_set_access         1
>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_get_access         2
>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_enable_emulate     3
>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_disable_emulate    4
>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_set_access         0
>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_get_access         1
>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_enable_emulate     2
>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_disable_emulate    3
>>>
>>>  typedef enum {
>>>      XENMEM_access_n,
>>> @@ -440,12 +439,11 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mem_access_op_t);
>>>  #define XENMEM_sharing_op_nominate_gfn      0
>>>  #define XENMEM_sharing_op_nominate_gref     1
>>>  #define XENMEM_sharing_op_share             2
>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_resume            3
>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gfn         4
>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_mfn         5
>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gref        6
>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_add_physmap       7
>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_audit             8
>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gfn         3
>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_mfn         4
>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gref        5
>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_add_physmap       6
>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_audit             7
>>>
>>>  #define XENMEM_SHARING_OP_S_HANDLE_INVALID  (-10)
>>>  #define XENMEM_SHARING_OP_C_HANDLE_INVALID  (-9)
>>
>> Is it really necessary/useful to renumber all of these rather than
>> just dropping the one each no longer supported values?
> 
> IMHO it makes the code cleaner but functionally there wouldn't be any
> difference. I prefer it this way but I'm not against just deprecating
> the old numbers either. Up to you.

I think it's really Tim to decide.

Jan