From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] make error codes a formal part of the
	ABI
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:10:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1421169004.19103.167.camel@eu.citrix.com>
References: <54B5540A02000078000547D4@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1421166952.19103.148.camel@eu.citrix.com>
	<21685.20084.251202.502689@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YB59E-00019E-6M
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:20:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <21685.20084.251202.502689@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 16:57 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH RFC] make error codes a formal part of the ABI"):
> > On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 16:21 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > There's on small block commented with TBD left in the public header.
> > > This is the main reason for the submission being RFC. While we don't
> > > currently use these error codes, I'm not sure if we should leave all
> > > or some of them out for the time being.
> > 
> > I say lets omit any we don't use for now.
> 
> Is it possible that anyone is using the existing header file where
> these values were defined ?

It's not installed or in the regular header paths, so it seems unlikely,
or at least they would have had to jump through some hoops and no doubt
have a big comment about their fragile hack...

>   If so their code might say
>   case ELOOP:
> which would not compile when they switched to the new header.
> 
> I don't know whether this is likely, or a problem.
> 
> Ian.