[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] dom_cow is needed for mem-sharing only
Hi, On 5/31/19 6:27 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Fri, 31 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote:Hi Jan, On 31/05/2019 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:On 31.05.19 at 12:34, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:No it was a more generic statement on the stance "It already exists in Xen so it is fine to spread them a bit more".Oh, I see. Of course I'm making remarks when what's in the tree is bad (as per e.g. coding style, or if not mentioned there than in my personal opinion). As a result I take note of you thinking this being bad practice, and the two of us disagreeing. I'm certainly willing to adjust non-obvious code to a more obvious shape in various cases, but I think there needs to be a limit as to what language features we decide should not be used in the code base. Overriding declarations (and in some cases even definitions) by macros is a useful thing for general readability in certain cases in my opinion, and while it's not making much of difference here I'd still prefer if I was allowed to get away with this, unless a majority supports your view. IOW - your change request is, as per my own perspective, making the code less easy to read, even if not by much.Let will wait the opinion from the others here.My preference is what Andrew suggested: #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_MEM_SHARING extern struct domain *dom_cow; #else define dom_cow NULL #endif and I find Jan's original version harder to read. However, for code style related things, I prefer to "suggest" to other maintainers one way or the other, rather than "request" for a change. Note that I wrote "I would prefer" in my e-mail and the agreement was to wait on other view. Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |