From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 05/10] libxl_json: introduce parser
 functions for builtin types
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:00:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20140423120029.GD7712@zion.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1397733191-31892-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1397733191-31892-6-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1398179398.4880.51.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<20140423100134.GX7712@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<1398247974.18537.10.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<20140423101930.GZ7712@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<1398249079.18537.19.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<20140423104242.GB7712@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<20140423111427.GC7712@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<1398253306.18537.59.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1398253306.18537.59.camel@kazak.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 Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:41:46PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
[...]
> > > 
> > > The way I see it is that in current libxl code, the caller , regardless
> > 
> > Sorry I meant "xl code".
> 
> It does look that way doesn't it. Lets go for consistency for sure!
> 
> Any chance you could add a comment to a relevant section of libxl.h to
> describe this expectation (in the general case, not just for this
> interface)?
> 

No problem.

Wei.