> On Nov 30, 2018, at 4:12 PM, George Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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.
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
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
