From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 12/19] tools/libxl: passes rdm reservation policy Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:56:56 +0800 Message-ID: <5593C778.8010606@intel.com> References: <1435053450-25131-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1435053450-25131-13-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55934109.4020504@intel.com> <5593BF66.9010505@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5593BF66.9010505@eu.citrix.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: George Dunlap Cc: Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> This is trying to covert LIBXL_XXX to XEN_XXX passed this policy as a >> hypercall, so I still think this is better to live here. Instead, the >> previous patch is just defining something. > > The entire rest of this patch is about xl. It doesn't make any sense at > all for the previous patch to modify libxl in a way that doesnt' > actually do anything, and then in the current patch modify both xl and > libxl. > Right. > What if, for instance, someone had built their own toolstack on top of > libxl, and wanted to backport just the xen/libxl parts of the RMRR > series? They'd have to backport this patch with the xl changes to get a > functioning system, even though they aren't really using libxl. > So I will squash this into the previous patch as you suggested here. Thanks Tiejun