From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: libxl: Is the nic param to libxl_network_device_add an (in)_out parameter? Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:44:13 +0000 Message-ID: <1416325453.17982.22.camel@citrix.com> References: <20141118152848.GE31225@citrix.com> <1416324924.17982.21.camel@citrix.com> <21611.26775.594669.510363@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21611.26775.594669.510363@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: Euan Harris , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 15:41 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] libxl: Is the nic param to libxl_network_device_add an (in)_out parameter?"): > > On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 15:28 +0000, Euan Harris wrote: > > > If I call libxl_device_nic_add and pass in a mostly-default > > > libxl_device_nic structure, the function fills in the unspecified default > > > config fields with data for the NIC which it has just created: > ... > > > Is this behaviour an intentional part of the API which I can rely on, > > > or just an artefact of the current implementation? In other words, is > > > nic meant to be an (in)_out parameter? > > Yes. > > > I believe so, yes. The comment under "Devices" in libxl.h probably ought > > to be adjusted to say so explicitly. > > > > Ian (J) -- do you agree? > > I do. I think this applies to other kinds of device too, which might > have unspecified parameters which get filled in. Agreed. The docs section I was referring to is generic to all devices, not just nics (i.e. it talks about libxl_device__add etc), so a comment change would (and should) apply to everything. > > Euan, would you like to send us a doc patch for libxl.h ? > > Ian.