[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4f534f1-8f07-085e-6a10-edbeb884d1a4@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:24:38 +0200
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@...m.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] xen: cleanup detection of non-essential pv devices
On 22.10.2021 08:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today the non-essential pv devices are hard coded in the xenbus driver
> and this list is lacking multiple entries.
>
> This series reworks the detection logic of non-essential devices by
> adding a flag for that purpose to struct xenbus_driver.
I'm wondering whether it wouldn't better be the other way around: The
(hopefully few) essential ones get flagged, thus also making it more
prominent during patch review that a flag gets added (and justification
provided), instead of having to spot the lack of a flag getting set.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists