From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E659C2B9F4 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2F2A611CE for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:50:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E2F2A611CE Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.141523.261379 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsmyP-0003Eo-Lj; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:53 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 141523.261379; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsmyP-0003Eh-Ii; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:53 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 141523; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:51 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsmyN-0003Eb-OK for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:51 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsmyN-0005Rq-MJ for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:51 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsmyN-0006IM-La for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:49:51 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lsmyC-0006UC-FL; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:49:40 +0100 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=7KlJg5qmLnYl1LtfWn96biimdtbJh1Th9pa+aSmotHM=; b=WG3wCI0cOBW/U/gRb2IrCbfo5z VU7DsHy/IRT4L93YsTNplWMrlq2fC84Mc/vVhedF+NWjgJ2bttDCUubE0dBK2IBHtzZ6usGUnC98+ 1PPA9OwERy5GHgcAkFQRuVjfOGxgk12AbgciVGzeRb5gobofJsmfa3SE6SLWnUF0c0vE=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <24775.24180.199869.133786@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:49:40 +0100 To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , Igor Druzhinin , Edwin Torok , Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= , Wei Liu , Xen-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] libs/guest: Move struct xc_cpu_policy into xg_private.h In-Reply-To: References: <20210611163627.4878-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <20210611163627.4878-5-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 4/5] libs/guest: Move struct xc_cpu_policy into xg_private.h"): > On 11.06.2021 18:36, Andrew Cooper wrote: ... so tests can peek at > > the internals, without the structure being generally available to > > users of the library. > > I'm not sure whether this slight over-exposure is tolerable in the tools code, > so I'd prefer leaving the ack-ing of this change to the tools folks. I am fine with the change described in the Subject. But I haven't reviewed the patch, which wasn't CC'd to me AFAICT. Ian.