From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55301) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpbPK-0006gA-Tc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:25:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpbPG-00031D-Ut for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:25:18 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:34583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpbPG-000317-Nw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:25:14 -0400 Message-ID: <1445603112.2374.139.camel@citrix.com> From: Ian Campbell Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:25:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1445440941.9563.163.camel@citrix.com> <1445441038-25903-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> <1445441038-25903-8-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU-XEN v4 7/9] xen: Use stable library interfaces when they are available. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 12:31 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > diff --git a/include/hw/xen/xen_common.h b/include/hw/xen/xen_common.h > > index 2a5f27a..38293b4 100644 > > --- a/include/hw/xen/xen_common.h > > +++ b/include/hw/xen/xen_common.h > > @@ -6,6 +6,17 @@ > > #include > > #include > > > > +#if CONFIG_XEN_CTRL_INTERFACE_VERSION >= 470 > > +/* > > + * If we have new enough libxenctrl then we do not want/need these compat > > + * interfaces, despite what the user supplied cflags might say. They > > + * must be undefined before including xenctrl.h > > + */ > > +#undef XC_WANT_COMPAT_EVTCHN_API > > +#undef XC_WANT_COMPAT_GNTTAB_API > > +#undef XC_WANT_COMPAT_MAP_FOREIGN_API > > +#endif > > Can we always do the #under given that earlier libxenctrl versions will > simple ignore them? I am asking because I would prefer to avoid > introducing another ifdef here outside the sequence if ifdefs already > present below. Ah yes, we can indeed. Ian.