From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/18 V2]: PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:03:41 -0400
Message-ID: <20130319130341.GB2706@phenom.dumpdata.com>
References: <20130315173240.591f9784@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<51470E8502000078000C652A@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130318172122.05a084e3@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<5148348502000078000C6A17@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5148348502000078000C6A17@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

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?