> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ian Jackson <[email protected]> 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. > Conversely it would be nice to say somewhere > that ddms->callback may be called reentrantly. What do you mean by reentrantly? That libxl__destroy_device_model() may end up calling it directly (on this execution stack), rather than arranging for it to be called by someone else after returning? -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
