On 22/06/17 08:05, Jan Beulich wrote: > No - I'm open to any change to it which makes the currently ignored > argument no longer ignored, without breaking existing (known and > unknown) callers of the libxc wrapper. I.e. I'm in no way opposed to > make it work the way you think it was originally meant to work; it is > just that given its current use I've come to a different conclusion as > to what the original intention may have been.
Actually, I think the clincher is this: test_assign_device, assign_device, and deassign_device all use the same structure. That makes it pretty obvious that "test_assign_device" was meant to ask the question, "If I call this hypercall with assign_device instead, will it succeed or fail?" -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
