Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/18 V2]: PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.03.13 at 14:03, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:48:53AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 19.03.13 at 01:21, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:54:29 +0000
>> > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >>> On 16.03.13 at 01:32, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> > @@ -277,8 +280,8 @@ struct domain
>> >> >      struct rangeset *iomem_caps;
>> >> >      struct rangeset *irq_caps;
>> >> >  
>> >> > -    /* Is this an HVM guest? */
>> >> > -    bool_t           is_hvm;
>> >> > +    /* !is_pvh && !is_hvm ==> PV, else PVH or HVM */
>> >> > +    enum {hvm_guest=1, pvh_guest} guest_type;
>> >> 
>> >> And of course, please properly format this.
>> > 
>> > Not sure I follow what needs formatting?
>> 
>> A number of blanks need to be inserted. And the whole enum
>> declaration probably doesn't belong on a single line anyway.
> 
> The single line looks to be already there:
> 
> enum { DOMDYING_alive, DOMDYING_dying, DOMDYING_dead } is_dying;
> 
> So I think Mukesh is just following the same convention in that
> file. Should he depart from it?

Not necessarily, provided the line isn't getting overly long.

Jan


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