Re: [Xen-devel] Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper API to setup ring and enable mem_access"

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tamas Lengyel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Issues regarding "mem_access: Add helper 
API to setup ring and enable mem_access""):
> 
>     > Now with this function being reintroduced, it becomes more complicated
>     > to determine which version of the mem_access API does Xen actually
>     > provide. A #define indicating mem_access API version would nicely
>     > overcome this issue, or  naming xc_mem_event_enable something else.
> 
>     Doesn't configure support checking for functions with a given prototype?
> 
> It does but in a very hacky way, essentially trying to compile code where the
> function is being called with different prototypes. We can work around it but 
> a
> clean solution would be preferred at some point.

I agree with your criticism, TBH.  Aravindh/Ian, can we rename this
function ?

> This is now a rather opaque behavior of libxc. As it is not merged
> into master I guess I will just submit a patch for it..

Yes.  I think this would be the right approach to addressing both of
these problems.  (Please send two patches, one for each.)

Thanks,
Ian.

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