On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote: > 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. >
You're right. I want to make it internal so that we don't need to worry about the public API for now. > 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? > Yes. Wei. > 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) > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
