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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 13:42 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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 ?

I have no objection to some other name.

> > 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