Re: [RFC PATCH 6/16]: PVH xen: Define pvh guest and header changes..

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:53:11 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 16.01.13 at 01:37, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:38:41 +0000
> > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> >> As you add a level of parentheses, you also ought to adjust
> >> indentation.
> > 
> > It's already indented single space like the previous macro was. Do
> > you want me to 4 space it?
> 
> No - I want you to add a single space of indentation for each
> added level of opening parentheses that don't have seeing
> their matching closing ones yet.

Done.

> >> But the defines, if needed at all, are grossly misplaced in any
> >> case; there ought to be a pvh header for such stuff.
> > 
> > Well, I imagine those asserts while PVH is still being stabilized,
> > and then removed. Do you still want me to create a new header with
> > just 3 defines that will be deleted in near future?
> 
> Are you telling me that there's nothing else pvh-specific that
> needs declaring/defining? And even if so, xen/lib.h clearly is
> the wrong place - I'm not even convinced PVH is a cross-
> architecture concept...
> 
> >> > @@ -278,6 +281,7 @@ struct domain
> >> >  
> >> >      /* Is this an HVM guest? */
> >> >      bool_t           is_hvm;
> >> > +    bool_t           is_pvh;      /* see above for description
> >> > */
> >> 
> >> These are mutually exclusive (also with PV), so perhaps better
> >> to have a single enum-type variable?

Ok, made it enum. I already know you are not going to like my 
naming ;)...