On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:10:06PM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> From: Paul Durrant <pdurr...@amazon.com>
>
> ... and use it to define libxl_device_disk_safe_remove().
>
> This patch builds on the existent macro magic by using a new value of the
> 'force' field in in libxl__ao_device.
> It is currently defined as an int but is used in a boolean manner where
> 1 means the operation is forced and 0 means it is not (but is actually forced
> after a 10s time-out). In adding a third value, this patch re-defines 'force'
> as a struct type (libxl__force) with a single 'flag' field taking an
> enumerated value:
>
> LIBXL__FORCE_AUTO - corresponding to the old 0 value
> LIBXL__FORCE_ON - corresponding to the old 1 value
> LIBXL__FORCE_OFF - the new value
>
> The LIBXL_DEFINE_DEVICE_REMOVE() macro is then modified to define the
> libxl_device_<type>_remove() and libxl_device_<type>_destroy() functions,
> setting LIBXL__FORCE_AUTO and LIBXL__FORCE_ON (respectively) in the
> libxl__ao_device passed to libxl__initiate_device_generic_remove() and a
> new macro, LIBXL_DEFINE_DEVICE_SAFE_REMOVE(), is defined that sets
> LIBXL__FORCE_OFF instead. This macro is used to define the new
> libxl_device_disk_safe_remove() function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <pdurr...@amazon.com>
Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
Just one nit.
> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
> index e16ae9630b..1fcf85c3e2 100644
> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_internal.h
> @@ -2730,12 +2730,20 @@ _hidden void libxl__prepare_ao_device(libxl__ao *ao,
> libxl__ao_device *aodev);
> /* generic callback for devices that only need to set ao_complete */
> _hidden void device_addrm_aocomplete(libxl__egc *egc, libxl__ao_device
> *aodev);
>
> +typedef struct {
> + enum {
> + LIBXL__FORCE_AUTO, /* Re-execute with FORCE_ON if op times out */
> + LIBXL__FORCE_ON,
> + LIBXL__FORCE_OFF,
> + } flag;
> +} libxl__force;
Couldn't you just use the typedef against the union directly instead
of wrapping it around a struct?
Thanks, Roger.
