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

["Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp)" <aravindp@xxxxxxxxx>]

>       > 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?

Thanks,
Aravindh

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