George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 7/9] libxl: Make killing of device model
asynchronous"):
> 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.
That's OK by me.
Ian.
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 7/9] libxl: Make killing of device model
asynchronous"):
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Conversely it would be nice to say somewhere
> > that ddms->callback may be called reentrantly.
>
> What do you mean by reentrantly? That
> On Nov 30, 2018, at 4:12 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ian Jackson 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
>>>
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ian Jackson 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
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
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.
No functional
