> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 01 May 2015 20:28
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Keir (Xen.org)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/hvm: introduce functions for
> HVMOP_get/set_param allowance checks
>
> >>> Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> 05/01/15 4:05 PM >>>
> >+ /* The following parameters cannot be set by the guest. */
>
> Didn't you agree that "cannot" isn't the right term here?
>
Yes, sorry I must have missed that.
> >+ /* The following parameters can only be changed once. */
> >+ switch ( a->index )
> >+ {
> >+ case HVM_PARAM_VIRIDIAN:
> >+ case HVM_PARAM_IOREQ_SERVER_PFN:
> >+ case HVM_PARAM_NR_IOREQ_SERVER_PAGES:
> >+ if (value != 0 && a->value != value)
>
> There are still blanks missing here.
>
True.
> >case HVM_PARAM_IDENT_PT:
> >- /* Not reflexive, as we must domain_pause(). */
>
> And I continue to think that retaining these comments would be useful for
> documentation purposes (even when switching to white lists - they should
> then remain explicit case labels grouped with the "default" one). And taking
> into consideration the comment change requested at the very top (which
> changes again in the 3rd patch), there could then perhaps be a distinction
> between "can't", "shouldn't", and "mustn't" (again solely serving doc
> purposes).
>
Ok, if you don't mind have the extra functionally redundant case statements.
Paul
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
