From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 12/12] xen/vm_event: Add RESUME option to vm_event_op domctl Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:48:34 +0000 Message-ID: <5513F212.9080401@citrix.com> References: <1426183138-24855-1-git-send-email-tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> <1426183138-24855-13-git-send-email-tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> <5513F3FD020000780006DD89@mail.emea.novell.com> <5513FF62020000780006DE1F@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5513FF62020000780006DE1F@mail.emea.novell.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: Jan Beulich , Tim Deegan , Tamas K Lengyel Cc: Kevin Tian , "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , Ian Campbell , Razvan Cojocaru , Stefano Stabellini , Ian Jackson , Eddie Dong , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Steven Maresca , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , Jun Nakajima , "rshriram@cs.ubc.ca" , Keir Fraser , Daniel De Graaf , "yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 26/03/15 11:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 26.03.15 at 12:29, wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 12.03.15 at 18:58, wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/include/public/memory.h >>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/memory.h >>>> @@ -385,11 +385,10 @@ typedef struct xen_mem_paging_op xen_mem_paging_op_t; >>>> DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mem_paging_op_t); >>>> >>>> #define XENMEM_access_op 21 >>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_resume 0 >>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_set_access 1 >>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_get_access 2 >>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_enable_emulate 3 >>>> -#define XENMEM_access_op_disable_emulate 4 >>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_set_access 0 >>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_get_access 1 >>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_enable_emulate 2 >>>> +#define XENMEM_access_op_disable_emulate 3 >>>> >>>> typedef enum { >>>> XENMEM_access_n, >>>> @@ -440,12 +439,11 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mem_access_op_t); >>>> #define XENMEM_sharing_op_nominate_gfn 0 >>>> #define XENMEM_sharing_op_nominate_gref 1 >>>> #define XENMEM_sharing_op_share 2 >>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_resume 3 >>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gfn 4 >>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_mfn 5 >>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gref 6 >>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_add_physmap 7 >>>> -#define XENMEM_sharing_op_audit 8 >>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gfn 3 >>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_mfn 4 >>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_debug_gref 5 >>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_add_physmap 6 >>>> +#define XENMEM_sharing_op_audit 7 >>>> >>>> #define XENMEM_SHARING_OP_S_HANDLE_INVALID (-10) >>>> #define XENMEM_SHARING_OP_C_HANDLE_INVALID (-9) >>> Is it really necessary/useful to renumber all of these rather than >>> just dropping the one each no longer supported values? >> IMHO it makes the code cleaner but functionally there wouldn't be any >> difference. I prefer it this way but I'm not against just deprecating >> the old numbers either. Up to you. > I think it's really Tim to decide. As we are making other ABI changes, I vote for dropping anything here which is unused as well. No point keeping them for compatibility given the other changes going on. ~Andrew