> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:14 PM
> To: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Cc: andrew.coop...@citrix.com; george.dun...@eu.citrix.com; Wu, Feng
> <feng...@intel.com>; Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com>; xen-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] Pause/Unpause the domain before/after assigning
> PI hooks
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:31 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 20.09.16 at 01:12, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > How's possible for the solution here to be "either remove the
> > > ASSERT()
> > > _OR_ change the code"? That really makes few sense to me... :-O
> > I disagree: Whether fixing/removing an ASSERT() that triggered or
> > adjusting other code to make the ASSERT() not trigger can indeed
> > both be an option, and may to some degree be a matter of taste.
> Yes, of course this is a possibility... I thought it was clear that I
> was simplifying things, but maybe I was simplifying too much, or "just"
> expressed myself bad.
> What I wasn't clear about was whether it is _correctness_ that is at
> risk or not. And that's right because I thought we established already
> that this wasn't a correctness issue, while it looked to me, from
> reading the discussion, that it actually may be.
> My bad again, for sure, sorry. Now I'll go back to the code to fix my
> misconceptions and (hopefully) be able to make myself more useful. :-)
You are always useful, your advices are always valuable! :)
> Thanks and Regards,
> <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
> Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
> Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
Xen-devel mailing list