From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] xen: remove DEFINE_XENBUS_DRIVER() macro Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:25:40 +0100 Message-ID: <54107B84.7070005@citrix.com> References: <1410350869-21277-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <20140910160043.GH12893@laptop.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XRkkv-0005Tg-AC for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:28:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20140910160043.GH12893@laptop.dumpdata.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: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Boris Ostrovsky , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/09/14 17:00, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:07:49PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: >> The DEFINE_XENBUS_DRIVER() macro looks a bit weird and causes sparse >> errors. > > .. but it is also useful for downstream distros to bolt on Xen patches. > > Is this urgent? Could it wait until Novell/SuSE has switched over > to using pvops and then this can go in? If the macro didn't cause sparse errors, I could be persuaded to wait. I do not think we should avoid fixing bugs or improving the readability or maintainability of the code to help out someone still using non-upstream Xen support. In general, the cost of maintaining non-upstream forks should not be paid for by upstream users/developers. David