From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/14] libxl: get and set soft affinity
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:59:41 +0000
Message-ID: <528CC04D.7080809@eu.citrix.com>
References: <20131118175544.31002.79574.stgit@Solace>	
	<20131118181813.31002.61195.stgit@Solace>
	<528B86A0.5000905@eu.citrix.com>	
	<1384877346.19880.121.camel@Abyss>	
	<1384881300.16252.41.camel@hastur.hellion.org.uk>	
	<1384887511.19880.191.camel@Abyss>
	<1384947053.28441.59.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1384947053.28441.59.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>, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: Marcus Granado <Marcus.Granado@eu.citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, Li Yechen <lccycc123@gmail.com>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Justin Weaver <jtweaver@hawaii.edu>, Elena Ufimtseva <ufimtseva@gmail.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 20/11/13 11:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 19:58 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> As per the mechanism used to amend the current API, I don't have a real
>> preference. Both me and George asked (in a previous thread) what
>> mechanism we should use, but we did not get much feedback at that time
>> (not complain, just summing up what has happened).
> Yes, sorry about that.
>
>> Right now, I think I just need for someone authoritative enough to
>> express his preference. You certainly qualify as such, but, if possible,
>> I'd like to see what the other Ian thinks too, as he's been quite deeply
>> involved in reviewing this interface.
> I think the major argument in favour of the LIBXL_API_VERSION based
> approach is that this is how we have dealt with all the previous such
> changes. Having a mixture of this and fooN interfaces seems to me to be
> worse that either option by itself.

Just to be clear -- if we bump the API number, then we have to do some 
#ifdef-ery to allow programs compiled against the old API to compile, right?

  -George