Re: [PATCH 6/18 V2]: PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:48:53AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.03.13 at 01:21, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:54:29 +0000
> > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>> On 16.03.13 at 01:32, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> > @@ -277,8 +280,8 @@ struct domain
> >> >      struct rangeset *iomem_caps;
> >> >      struct rangeset *irq_caps;
> >> >  
> >> > -    /* Is this an HVM guest? */
> >> > -    bool_t           is_hvm;
> >> > +    /* !is_pvh && !is_hvm ==> PV, else PVH or HVM */
> >> > +    enum {hvm_guest=1, pvh_guest} guest_type;
> >> 
> >> And of course, please properly format this.
> > 
> > Not sure I follow what needs formatting?
> 
> A number of blanks need to be inserted. And the whole enum
> declaration probably doesn't belong on a single line anyway.

The single line looks to be already there:

enum { DOMDYING_alive, DOMDYING_dying, DOMDYING_dead } is_dying;

So I think Mukesh is just following the same convention in that
file. Should he depart from it?