Re: [PATCH] libs/guest: Don't hide the indirection on xc_cpu_policy_t

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 04.05.2021 20:53, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Unsure what to do about x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible().  It would be nice
> to have xc_cpu_policy_is_compatible() sensibly const'd, but maybe that means
> we need a struct const_cpu_policy and that smells like it is spiralling out of
> control.

Not sure it would be that bad. In fact, looking at the few uses of struct
cpu_policy in the hypervisor, I wonder if the two contained pointers
couldn't be pointer-to-const right there. Once you've constructed a full
struct cpu_policy instance, it shouldn't typically be modified anymore,
should it? Would require the respective struct arch_domain fields to also
become pointer-to-const. And if the tool stack had any need for a
container with pointer-to-non-const, it could locally define a type,
keeping lib/x86/ tidy.

Jan