From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tamas Lengyel Subject: Re: Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper API to setup ring and enable mem_access" Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:54:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1403882455.3169.72.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <21425.23379.795171.801716@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1404132276.14488.41.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <97A500D504438F4ABC02EBA81613CC633185EDF5@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5383753705448170694==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <97A500D504438F4ABC02EBA81613CC633185EDF5@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp)" , Andres Lagar-Cavilla Cc: Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============5383753705448170694== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132f770b41b6b04fd348e63 --001a1132f770b41b6b04fd348e63 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp) < aravindp@cisco.com> wrote: > >> > 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 > With relocating these functions to xc_private.h the issue I had would be solved so no renaming would be required. My patch for doing that is on its way momentarily. Tamas --001a1132f770b41b6b04fd348e63 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp) <aravin= dp@cisco.com> wrote:
>> = =A0 =A0 =A0> I agree with your criticism, TBH. =A0Aravindh/Ian, can we r= ename this
>> =A0 =A0 =A0> function ?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0I 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_even= t_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 mo= ve
>them
>>to xc_private.h? Why have internal functions in the public header?<= br> >
>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

With relocating these functions to x= c_private.h the issue I had would be solved so no renaming would be require= d. My patch for doing that is on its way momentarily.

Tamas

--001a1132f770b41b6b04fd348e63-- --===============5383753705448170694== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============5383753705448170694==--