From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [libvirt] [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete
	build-i386-libvirt
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:21:46 +0200
Message-ID: <1404148906.8515.180.camel@Solace>
References: <E1X1J0P-0002Dl-FF@osstest.cam.xci-test.com>
	<1404112287.1829.96.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk>
	<1404136751.8515.173.camel@Solace> <53B19B03.7080804@suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6075898298474181467=="
Return-path: <libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <53B19B03.7080804@suse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/libvir-list>,
	<mailto:libvir-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list>
List-Post: <mailto:libvir-list@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:libvir-list-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list>,
	<mailto:libvir-list-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com
To: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>
Cc: libvir-list <libvir-list@redhat.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "xen.org" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

--===============6075898298474181467==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-TiRhDGjUiUsJTIOZnIIr"

--=-TiRhDGjUiUsJTIOZnIIr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On lun, 2014-06-30 at 11:14 -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >=20
> > I like patch1 better, but I think it can cause "unused variable" like
> > warnings if, at some point in future, we will actually use the new soft
> > affinity parameter, when compiling on a version of libxl that does not
> > define HAVE_VCPUINFO_SOFT_AFFINITY, can't it?
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> > If yes, is it an issue?
>=20
> As you say, only when the new parameter is actually used.  But that will
> cause build failures when warnings are treated as errors.
>=20
> > If yes, a big enough one to make us prefer patch2?
> >  =20
>=20
> Yes, I think so.  And as mentioned above, it is similar to how other
> LIBXL_HAVE_ is handled.
>=20
Patch2 it is then:

 http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-06/msg03930.html

Thanks and Regards,
Dario

--=20
<<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)


--=-TiRhDGjUiUsJTIOZnIIr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEABECAAYFAlOxnKsACgkQk4XaBE3IOsShKwCgj0hnNLISAYtnJJoY4MAqPHNy
+uUAoJUsfkORJpZE3E00RzNN+kTzVSuY
=pR7S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-TiRhDGjUiUsJTIOZnIIr--


--===============6075898298474181467==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline


--===============6075898298474181467==--