On lun, 2014-06-30 at 11:14 -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote: > Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > > I like patch1 better, but I think it can cause "unused variable" like > > warnings if, at some point in future, we will actually use the new soft > > affinity parameter, when compiling on a version of libxl that does not > > define HAVE_VCPUINFO_SOFT_AFFINITY, can't it? > > Yes. > > > If yes, is it an issue? > > As you say, only when the new parameter is actually used. But that will > cause build failures when warnings are treated as errors. > > > If yes, a big enough one to make us prefer patch2? > > > > Yes, I think so. And as mentioned above, it is similar to how other > LIBXL_HAVE_ is handled. > Patch2 it is then:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-06/msg03930.html 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
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
