Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 11/14] libxl: get and set soft affinity

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On mer, 2013-11-20 at 11:32 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:29 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 20/11/13 11:27, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > >> I did actually check and, of all the enum-s in the IDL, none are used as
> > >> flags, they're rather used as "single values". OTOH, the only actual
> > >> flags I found (I think it was LIBXL_SUSPEND_DEBUG, LIBXL_SUSPEND_LIVE)
> > >> were defined like I did myself above... That's why I went for it.
> > > I have a feeling they predate the IDL, or at least the Enumeration
> > > support. It's true that we don't have any other bit fields in enums
> > > though. I can't see the harm, it's probably not worth introducing a new
> > > IDL type for them.
> > 
> > Since these are bits, not numbers, I don't think an enum is the right 
> > construct.  Or, the enum values should be the *bit numbers*, and the 
> > flags should be (1<<[bit_humber]).
> 
> That would need a new IDL type to express. In which case lets just leave
> the raw #defines, unless anyone else has a strong opinion.
> 
That would probably the best option, at least for now. Of course, I can
add "introduce a new IDL type for bitfields" to my TODO list, and send a
followup patch for 4.5.

Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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