This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/6] libxl: portiblity fixes

To: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/6] libxl: portiblity fixes
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:21:54 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:23:11 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201007281106.01632.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcsuNDuddb25hjZQQIGb27pDnBQ2VAAAhXaM
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/6] libxl: portiblity fixes
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 28/07/2010 10:06, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>> This patch is wrong because it introduces a couple of function
>> declarations but it does not introduce the definitions; your later
>> patch which introduces the definitions is wrong because it introduces
>> some functions which are intended to replace existing code, but the
>> patch does not replace the existing code and the new functions are not
>> called anywhere in that patch.
> The function declarations are the API and the function defintions
> are the OS dependent implementations of the API.
> Implementations and use of the API is used in different patches.
> This is my understanding of defining and implementing an API
> in C.

I find that kind of way of splitting up a patch series annoying as well. As
Ian said, we want each patch to be a logical and separate whole. That means
providing an interface *and* its implementation. Possibly its users as well,
depending on how complicated that bit is -- it's certainly arguable they
belong in a separate patch, at least.

> blktap support for linux and netbsd are very different in their
> implementation.
> In netbsd, blktap will be implemented using puffs
> (http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?puffs+3+NetBSD-current)

A bit of a sidestep I know, but: shouldn't the blktap library be hiding this
osdep stuff?

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>