Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/9] libxl: Make killing of device model asynchronous

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Nov 30, 2018, at 4:12 PM, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 7/9] libxl: Make killing of device model 
>> asynchronous"):
>>> Or at least, give it an asynchronous interface so that we can make it
>>> actually asynchronous in subsequent patches.
>>> 
>>> Create state structures and callback function signatures.  Add the
>>> state structure to libxl__destroy_domid_state.  Break
>>> libxl__destroy_domid down into two functions.
>> ...
>>> +/* Used to detroy the device model */
>>> +_hidden void libxl__destroy_device_model(libxl__egc *egc,
>>> +                                         libxl__destroy_devicemodel_state 
>>> *ddms);
>> 
>> I think that comment is rather pointless (but I won't object if you
>> really want to keep it).  
> 
> Yes; that comment looks rather vestigal.

Oh, I see; I was following suit with the code around it:

/* Used to destroy a domain with the passed id (it doesn't check for stubs) */
_hidden void libxl__destroy_domid(libxl__egc *egc,
                                  libxl__destroy_domid_state *dis);

/* Used to detroy the device model */
_hidden void libxl__destroy_device_model(libxl__egc *egc,
                                         libxl__destroy_devicemodel_state 
*ddms);

/* Entry point for devices destruction */
_hidden void libxl__devices_destroy(libxl__egc *egc,
                                    libxl__devices_remove_state *drs);

It looks cleaner to me to have *something* there than not, just to visually 
make it clear that it has nothing to do with the previous function.

 -George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel