Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/27] tools/libxl: Fix libxl__ev_child_inuse() check for not-yet-initialised children

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16/06/15 14:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH 01/27] tools/libxl: Fix 
> libxl__ev_child_inuse() check for not-yet-initialised children"):
>> It is possible that one bit fails before it can be calculated whether
>> the second bit needs to start or not.
>>
>> At the moment, all bits in libxl in this area do initialisation
>> immediately before use; most bits are even initialised in the function
>> which starts their actions.  Some bits are initialised differently
>> depending on the path taken to get to the initialisation site. 
> As a rule of thumb a function libxl__initiate_foo_ which takes a
> libxl__foo_state* should do this initialisation for the whole
> libxl__foo_state.
>
> I don't see why you can't do that.

The only example of libxl__initiate_foo_ is
libxl__initiate_device_remove() which starts the first action involved
with removing a device.

I will see what I can do, but there are areas of this code which can't
have their initialisation brought any further forward.

~Andrew

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