Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V8 00/12] xen: Clean-up of mem_event subsystem

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 13:15 +0200 on 09 Apr (1428585330), Tamas Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Tamas Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry for the delay - I have been away.
> >>
> >> At 22:06 +0100 on 26 Mar (1427407612), Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >> > Tamas K Lengyel (12):
> >> >   xen/mem_event: Cleanup of mem_event structures
> >> >   xen/mem_event: Cleanup mem_event names in rings, functions and domctls
> >> >   xen/mem_paging: Convert mem_event_op to mem_paging_op and cleanup
> >> >   xen: Rename mem_event to vm_event
> >> >   tools/tests: Clean-up tools/tests/xen-access
> >> >   x86/hvm: factor out and rename vm_event related functions
> >>
> >> I have applied these six patches.
> >>
> >> >   xen: Introduce monitor_op domctl
> >>
> >> This one no longer applies cleanly - looks like a conflict with a7511905
> >> ("xen: Extend DOMCTL createdomain to support arch configuration")
> >>
> >> Can you rebase the second half of the series please?
> >>
> >
> > Absolutely. Will be sending it shortly, thanks.
> >
> > Tamas
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Tim.
> >>
> >
> What's the policy on reusing DOMCTL numbers? I see
> XEN_DOMCTL_arm_configure_domain
> has been retired in the conflicting patch. Should I just reuse it's number
> for monitor_op? For the most part domctl numbers seem to be continuous but
> there are holes (30-32) so I'm not sure.

I'm not sure either.  I'd be inlclined to leave a hole here, to avoid
any accidental confusion with the recently-removed op, but other
maintainers may disagree. :)

Cheers,

Tim.

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