[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/18] x86: more bool_t to bool cleanup
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:19:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: [...] > > > > I do try to be as careful as possible with the code -- I don't think I > > ever broke the hypervisor too badly, if at all, in my recent work. Now > > I've mostly figured out what you and Andrew like patch-wise. If you > > think of anything that can be done better, do let me know. > > ... while I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything, let alone > breaking the hypervisor, there were a few things which neither > would have resulted in breakage nor would have required mind > reading. Best example probably is when you touched definitions but > let declarations alone. > Right. I make no excuse for the mistakes I made. I will be more careful next time. > > And frankly I didn't mean / want to do the cleanup in the first place -- > > I wanted to do another thing: PV in PVH. But the code as-is is just not > > in the right shape to work with. As I went along, it gradually grew into > > a useful project of its own right. To be clear, this is not to blame > > anyone involved in the past or now. The constraints then were different > > from the ones we have now. I've foolishly signed myself up to this big > > project because I think it is worth it. :-) > > Ah, I didn't realize that was the background even here; I did assume > that to be the background for the PV split work. > It annoyed me a bit to see the code like that, but I can cope with the inconsistency. The rest is better to discuss during the summit. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |