From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/libxc: perpare xc_domain_save for upcoming changes Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:54:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20130219185410.GC21783@aepfle.de> References: <20771.48457.150475.736921@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20771.48457.150475.736921@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: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Feb 19, Ian Jackson wrote: > Olaf Hering writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools/libxc: perpare xc_domain_save for upcoming changes"): > > tools/libxc: perpare xc_domain_save for upcoming changes > > > > An upcoming patch will pass min_remaining to xc_domain_save. > > Because such a will be an API change, take the opportunity to change the > > API so that it will be easier to pass more options in the future. > > I'm not sure why changing the large number of arguments to > xc_domain_save to a struct is an improvement, even given that you are > proposing to add one. Can you explain further ? If new parameters will be passed into xc_domain_save it will change the API every time. If instead such parameters are stuffed into a struct the API will not change for callers, if the new struct member is really optional. I'm fine with adding yet another parameter to xc_domain_save, given that there are appearently no external callers. libvirt uses libxl. Olaf