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 14:45:08 +0800
Message-ID: <55ADEA74.2010805@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>
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: <21933.4781.777777.167243@mariner.uk.xensource.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 Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

> But d_config is a libxl_domain_config which is supplied by libxl's
> caller.  It might contain some rdms.
>
>> I guess this line make you or other guys confused so lets delete this
>> line directly.
>
> I don't think I am very confused.
>
>> 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.
>

Based on Campbell' explanation I think you guys are raising a reasonable 
concern. We shouldn't clear that over there arbitrarily.

Thanks
Tiejun