Re: [PATCH 0/9] libxl: spolit up libxl.c

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

On 08/02/17 15:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Juergen Gross writes ("[PATCH 0/9] libxl: spolit up libxl.c"):
>> Code movement only. No functional change intended.
> 
> This statement is not true because
> 
>> Juergen Gross (9):
>>   libxl: adjust copyright comment of libxl.c
> 
> ... that patch is not just code motion.

Okay, more precise wording:

Changes are:
- moving functions into new or existing sources
- modification of Copyright comment
- made two functions non-static: libxl__get_memory_target(),
  xcinfo2xlinfo()
- made one function static: libxl__device_frontend_path()
- modified Makefile to include new source files
- removed some trailing spaces in moved code
- reordered some functions in new sources to get rid of some local
  prototypes

> Can you please double-check, and explicitly enumerate the other
> intentional changes ?  Obviously there is an intentional change to the
> Makefile, and the copyright header is duplicated in each case.
> 
> Are there any other changes which are not precisely moving a block of
> lines from libxl.c into other file(s), completely unchanged ?
> 
> Did you have to make any functions non-static ?


Juergen


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