On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 16:27 -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c
> index 58df4f3..2a08bef 100644
> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c
> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_utils.c
> @@ -614,6 +614,13 @@ void libxl_bitmap_copy(libxl_ctx *ctx, libxl_bitmap
> *dptr,
> memcpy(dptr->map, sptr->map, sz * sizeof(*dptr->map));
> }
>
> +void libxl_bitmap_copy_partial(libxl_ctx *ctx, libxl_bitmap *dptr,
> + const libxl_bitmap *sptr)
> +{
> + assert(dptr->size >= sptr->size);
> + memcpy(dptr->map, sptr->map, sptr->size * sizeof(*dptr->map));
> +}
> +
Looking at other callers of libxl_bitmap_copy(), I think something like
this makes sense for pretty much all of them.And even abstracting from them, and thinking to how a function like 'libxl_bitmap_copy()' this should behave, copying only the "common part" makes sense to me. So, should we make libxl_bitmap_copy() behave like implemented above, rather than introducing a new function. I know this is public stable API, but I think this is a fine behavioral change, isn't it? Regards, Dario -- <<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)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
