From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp)" <aravindp@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper API to
 setup ring and enable mem_access"
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:31:32 +0000
Message-ID: <97A500D504438F4ABC02EBA81613CC633185EDF5@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.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>
	<1404132276.14488.41.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAErYnshnYY8+NXpR3LidX41G+nC78Xadyhrb6_1UtyPioxG5mw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Language: en-US
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: Tamas Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>	> I agree with your criticism, TBH.  Aravindh/Ian, can we rename this
>>	> function ?
>>
>>	I have no objection to some other name.
>
>How about xc_enable_mem_event()? If that is fine, I will submit a patch.
>
>>A question regarding renaming the xc_mem_event_enable function. The
>>public xenctrl.h clearly says
>>
>>/**
>> * mem_event operations. Internal use only.
>> */
>>
>>There are only three of these, xc_mem_event_control,
>>xc_mem_event_memop and xc_mem_event_enable. Wouldn't it make
>more
>>sense to just exclude these functions from the public header and move
>them
>>to xc_private.h? Why have internal functions in the public header?
>
>I too think these can be moved to the xc_private.h. IanC / IanJ, what are your
>thoughts on doing this?

Forgot to add that if this move is done then I am assuming the rename is not required. Correct?

Thanks,
Aravindh