George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 4/9] dm_depriv: Describe expected usage of
device_model_user parameter"):
> Because the feature is already implemented and working correctly according to
> the pre-series semantics (AFAICT), but not documented (other than a comment
> in libxl_types.idl saying,
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 4/9] dm_depriv: Describe expected usage of
> device_model_user parameter"):
>> A number of subsequent patches rely on as-yet undefined behavior for
>> what the `device_model_user` parameter does. Rather than
George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 4/9] dm_depriv: Describe expected usage of
device_model_user parameter"):
> A number of subsequent patches rely on as-yet undefined behavior for
> what the `device_model_user` parameter does. Rather than implement it
> incorrectly (or randomly), or remove the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:14:57PM +, George Dunlap wrote:
> A number of subsequent patches rely on as-yet undefined behavior for
> what the `device_model_user` parameter does. Rather than implement it
> incorrectly (or randomly), or remove the feature, describe an expected
> usage for the
A number of subsequent patches rely on as-yet undefined behavior for
what the `device_model_user` parameter does. Rather than implement it
incorrectly (or randomly), or remove the feature, describe an expected
usage for the feature. Further patches will make decisions based on
this expected
