On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:55 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> Fair enough - is this something like what you had in mind?
Almost. You don't need two bits to encode the boolean writeable property
-- I reckon should just ditch XS_OPEN_READWRITE since its the default
and equivalent to the absence of XS_OPEN_READONLY. The common case
should be to pass flags == 0 and get a read+write connection.
Ian.
>
> ~M
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Ian Campbell
> <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:38 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Ian Campbell
> >
>
> > For future flexibility should we consider passing a
> flags
> > argument and defining "XS_OPEN_READONLY 1<<0"
> instead of
> > having an ro argument?
> >
> > Sure, we could do it, but I'm not too sure what other modes
> we could
> > have for opening, let alone ones that might be used
> simultaneously in
> > a bit field ;)
>
>
> There's no downside to using a flag field now, even if no
> compelling use
> cases come to mind right now and it might avoid an API change
> in the
> future.
>
> One vague thought I had was that I recently added a
> "nonreentrant" flag
> to libxc for use in language bindings which like to control
> threading
> themselves. Some sort of "no watches" flag might be useful in
> the future
> for similar reasons.
>
> > I don't suppose you feel like running sed over the
> tree to
> > convert the
> > in tree users, do you ;-)
> >
> >
> > Could do, but I'd rather we get the interface finalized
> first ;)
>
>
> Sure.
>
> > Is there anything one specially needs to take into
> consideration when
> > replacing them in the bindings?
>
>
> I can't think of any -- try it and if it isn't obviously
> broken it's
> probably fine ;-)
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home