From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid
 conflicts with RDM
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:44:40 +0800
Message-ID: <55ADEA58.2000601@intel.com>
References: <1437373023-14884-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1437373023-14884-12-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<21932.63595.566823.211293@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AD0842.1010906@intel.com>
	<21933.2931.10827.7353@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AD0EFF.8020405@intel.com>
	<21933.4781.777777.167243@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1437406730.17368.57.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1437406730.17368.57.camel@citrix.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: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

  > I think the confusion here is that the d_config->rdms array (which
> num_rdms is the length of) is in the public API (because it is in
> libxl_types.idl) but is apparently only being used in this series as an
> internal state for the domain build process (i.e. xl doesn't ever add
> anything to the array rdms).
>
> Tiejun, is that an accurate summary?

Yes.

>
> If the field is in the public API then the possibility of something
> being passed in their must be considered now, even if this particular
> series adds no such calls, since we cannot prevent 3rd party users of
> libxl adding such configuration.
>
> Is the possibility of the toolstack (i.e. the caller of libxl) supplying
> an array of rdm regions seems to be being left aside for future work or
> it not intended to ever support that?

Its very possible so you're right.
Thanks
Tiejun

>
> Ian.
>
>>
>>> And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
>>> beginning of this function like this,
>>>
>>> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>>
>> If you are sure that this assertion is correct, then that would be
>> proper.
>>
>> But as I say above, I don't think it is.
>>
>> Ian.
>
>
>