Re: [PATCH v4 02/15] libxl: sanitize error handling in libxl_get_max_{cpus, nodes}

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1485 bytes --]

On mer, 2013-11-27 at 13:45 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 19:56 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >  
> >      cpumap->map = xc_cpupool_freeinfo(ctx->xch);
> > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c
> > index 9f5f589..1815422 100644
> > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c
> > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c
> > @@ -651,6 +651,56 @@ char *libxl_bitmap_to_hex_string(libxl_ctx *ctx, const libxl_bitmap *bitmap)
> >      return q;
> >  }
> >  
> > +int libxl_cpu_bitmap_alloc(libxl_ctx *ctx, libxl_bitmap *cpumap, int max_cpus)
> 
> You seem to have combined code motion with actual changes here. Please
> don't do that.
> 
As I explained in the commit message for this patch in v5, I actually am
both moving and (slightly) changing the functions, and that's mainly
because the changes I'm doing require the move (e.g., GC_INIT/GC_FREE
not being available in the original place).

I feel like it's more natural to do like this, rather than having a
pre-patch just moving the code for no apparent reason... Isn't it?

Or was it something else that you were pointing out?

(Anyway, feel free to look at v5 and reply there).

Thanks and Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel