[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 COLOPre 16/26] tools/libx{l, c}: add back channel to libxc
- To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:56:50 +0800
- Cc: wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx, eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, guijianfeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rshriram@xxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:56:59 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 07/01/2015 08:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 COLOPre 16/26] tools/libx{l, c}: add
back channel to libxc"):
So to restate the question: Why does the current design deviate from the
design in the paper, or does the paper not say what we think it says.
To be clear, I have no problem if the design has changed since the
paper was written. I just want:
* A clear high-level explanation of the actually-implemented
arrangements to exist somewhere
* The commit messages, or code, to refer to that explanation
A description and explanation of the difference from some other
somewhat different previously-published document is IMO necessary in
this case because the primary design reference is that
previously-published document, which does not correspond to the actual
code.
Having a design document which disagrees with the implementation is
dangerous because future programmers will look to the design to
understand what is going on.
I will add the explanation to code comment and commit message, thank
you!
Ian.
.
--
Thanks,
Yang.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
