Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] libxl: re-implement libxl__xs_printf()

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 12:29 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 17:04 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 15:22 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@citrix.com]
> > > > Sent: 02 December 2015 15:21
> > > > To: Paul Durrant; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> > > > Cc: Ian Jackson; Stefano Stabellini; Wei Liu
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] libxl: re-implement libxl__xs_printf()
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 13:55 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > > This patch adds a new libxl__xs_vprintf() which actually checks
> > > > > the
> > > > > success of the underlying call to xs_write() (logging if it
> > > > > fails)
> > > > > and
> > > > > then re-implements libxl__xs_printf() using this (and replacing
> > > > > the
> > > > > call to vasprintf() with a call to libxl__vsprintf()).
> > > > 
> > > > Is the addition of libxl__xs_vprintf() an end in itself (i.e. do
> > > > you
> > > > have
> > > > an upcoming use for it) or just an artefact of how you decided to
> > > > fix
> > > > libxl__xs_printf()?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It's an artefact but seemed sufficiently useful to expose.
> > 
> > Thanks:
> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> 
> And now applied, sorry for the delay.
> 
> The comment on libxl__xs_mknod in the context was different but I
> resolved
> that, hopefully correctly!
> 
> Did you have any other of these updates available? IIRC there were two
> series and both are now in, but there might be a third?

Specifically I have "[PATCH v2 0/3] libxl: xenstore related cleanup" and a
precursor, but I think all of that has subsequently ended up as the two
other series which already got applied, is that right?


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