On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 10:48 -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/24/2014 05:47 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> > >> The partial copy function should explicitly zero-out all remaining bits. > > I actually thought that partial copy function should do just that --- > copy bits that it has and leave others unchanged. The caller, if desires > so, should have cleared the mask prior to the call. (This is for the > case when destination is larger than source, of course). > Agreed. Anyway, AFAIU Wei's proposal, he's saying that this new _copy_partial() function can be an internal one, i.e., not part of the public API, or am I wrong, Wei? If yes, I agree with that. This leaves the question of whether we should change the behavior of the publicly exposed libxl_bitmap_copy(), which I'm still not sure about, but I guess, if we keep this internal, we can defer thinking to that to some other period not in between RCs? Thanks and 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
