Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] libxc: split xc_logdirty_control() from xc_shadow_control() [and 1 more messages]

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] libxc: split xc_logdirty_control() 
from xc_shadow_control()"):
> On 05.07.21 17:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> +long long xc_logdirty_control(xc_interface *xch,
> >>> +                              uint32_t domid,
> >>> +                              unsigned int sop,
> >>> +                              xc_hypercall_buffer_t *dirty_bitmap,
> >>> +                              unsigned long pages,
> >>> +                              unsigned int mode,
> >>> +                              xc_shadow_op_stats_t *stats)
> >>> +{
> >>> +    int rc;
> >>> +    struct xen_domctl domctl = {
> >>> +        .cmd         = XEN_DOMCTL_shadow_op,
> >>> +        .domain      = domid,
> >>> +        .u.shadow_op = {
> >>> +            .op    = sop,
> >>
> >> And same here the other way round: sop should really only be one of
> >> XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_CLEAN or XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_PEEK.
> >>
> >> With that fixed you can add my:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Thanks, but I won't take this just yet, awaiting your (and maybe
> > others') view(s) on my reply above.
> 
> I'm not feeling really strong in this regard. Either way is fine for
> me.

OK.  My understanding then is that you are happy with Jan's patch and
he can add the Reviewed-by even though he's not checking the ops.
Is that right ?

If so, then Jan, please add my
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
along with Juergen's review.

If I have misunderstood please explain :-).

Thanks,
Ian.