From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 COLOPre 16/26] tools/libx{l, c}: add back channel to libxc Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:56:50 +0800 Message-ID: <5593F1A2.903@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1435213552-10556-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1435213552-10556-17-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1435659052.21469.68.camel@citrix.com> <559352B6.2010400@cn.fujitsu.com> <1435747338.21469.252.camel@citrix.com> <5593C881.80600@citrix.com> <1435749706.21469.273.camel@citrix.com> <21907.55301.504151.217533@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21907.55301.504151.217533@mariner.uk.xensource.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: Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, Andrew Cooper , yunhong.jiang@intel.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/01/2015 08:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 COLOPre 16/26] tools/libx{l, c}: add back channel to libxc"): >> So to restate the question: Why does the current design deviate from the >> design in the paper, or does the paper not say what we think it says. > > To be clear, I have no problem if the design has changed since the > paper was written. I just want: > > * A clear high-level explanation of the actually-implemented > arrangements to exist somewhere > > * The commit messages, or code, to refer to that explanation > > A description and explanation of the difference from some other > somewhat different previously-published document is IMO necessary in > this case because the primary design reference is that > previously-published document, which does not correspond to the actual > code. > > Having a design document which disagrees with the implementation is > dangerous because future programmers will look to the design to > understand what is going on. I will add the explanation to code comment and commit message, thank you! > > Ian. > . > -- Thanks, Yang.