From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] libxl: fix libxl__abs_path
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:50:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20150714155051.GA28465@zion.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1436551257-28887-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1436551257-28887-2-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1436781452.7019.61.camel@citrix.com>
	<21923.61840.920833.811619@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1436858595.7019.118.camel@citrix.com>
	<21924.58143.42391.308384@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=63055421e=wei.liu2@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZF2U2-0005s7-TN
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:51:03 +0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <21924.58143.42391.308384@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
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: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:23:27AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/9] libxl: fix libxl__abs_path"):
> > On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 18:12 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > There are no call sites in libxl which can pass a NULL.
> > > 
> > > I think that if we are to retain this feature, it ought to be
> > > documented, at least.
> > 
> > Or add an assert if we don't wish to support this?
> 
> If we don't want to support it we can just remove the check and let it
> crash.
> 

I will drop this patch and create a new one with this approach.

Wei.

> Ian.