[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Comments on LIBXL_HAVE_* defines (Was: Re: [PATCH V5 01/32] libxl: make cpupool_qualifier_to_cpupoolid a library function)

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 18:24 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> I will have the following snippet in libxl.h
>>  *
>>  * If this is defined, libxl has a library function called
>>  * libxl_cpupool_qualifier_to_cpupoolid, which takes in a CPU pool
>>  * qualifier in the form of number or string, then returns the ID of
>>  * that CPU pool.
>>  */
> I have a more general comment/thought about these LIBXL_HAVE comments.
> We've gotten into this pattern of adding a little bit of commentary to
> these comments (I think just because the first one happened too look
> this way) which either duplicate things which seem more or less obvious
> (LIBXL_HAVE_FOO_BAR => The struct FOO has a field BAR) or, worse, add
> documentation of that field which really belongs at the site of the
> field definition not here.
> Does anyone else thing that the comments associated with these defines
> should be terse and/or non-existent and that the bulk of most of them
> belongs next to the definition of the field/function in question?

Hmm, that's an interesting idea.  I'd have to think about it some
more, but there does seem to be some sense to doing things that way,
and I don't immediately see an objection.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.