Re: [PATCH v4 02/15] libxl: sanitize error handling in libxl_get_max_{cpus, nodes}

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

On mar, 2013-12-03 at 11:45 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 12:40 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > So, my view here is: if I modify the function, adding GC and the LOG()s,
> > then it should also be moved, if not, it can stay where it is. What you
> > seem to be suggesting is that I (either in this or a previous patch)
> > move the function as is, for no apparent reason,
> 
> It's not for "no apparent reason", it is to separate code motion from
> reworking the function, which you would explain in your commit message.
> 
Ok then.

> If that were considered no apparent reason then it wouldn't be possible
> to split the code motion from the functional changes in the majority of
> cases.
> 
Right.

Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for not getting what you mean/want
sooner. It just differs from the way I've done things up to now, so I
really wasn't sure I was understanding, rather than not wanting to do
it. :-)

Will do.

Thanks again and Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

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