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?

Forgot to add that if this move is done then I am assuming the rename is not 
required. Correct?

Thanks,
Aravindh

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