Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] xen: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/07/16 15:17, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 06:21:52AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> For single items being collected this should be preferred as being more
>> typesafe (as the compiler can check format string and to-be-written-to
>> variable match) and more efficient (requiring one less parameter to be
>> passed).
>>
>> 1: xenbus: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()
>> 2: xen-blkback: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()
>> 3: xen-blkfront: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()
>> 4: xen-netback: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2: Avoid commit messages to continue from subjects. Group into a series.
> 
> To confuse this, Roger and I are the block sub-maintainers, which
> when we are happy, I send to Jens, while the rest go through Boris,David, and 
> Juergen.
> 
> Anyhow, I've already committed and tested for regressions these:
> 79ef83a xen-blkback: constify instance of "struct attribute_group"
> 5e4d659 xen-blkfront: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()
> e9d1ebe xen-blkback: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()
> 5b3b1db xen-blkback: really don't leak mode property

If they're tree wide largely mechanical changes to Xen-related APIs I
prefer that they go via the Xen tree all together.

This saves the submitter chasing the individual subsystem maintainers.

David

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