On lun, 2014-06-30 at 11:14 -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
Dario Faggioli wrote:
I like patch1 better, but I think it can cause "unused variable" like warnings if, at some point in future, we will actually use the new soft affinity parameter, when compiling on a version of libxl that does not define HAVE_VCPUINFO_SOFT_AFFINITY, can't it?
Yes.
If yes, is it an issue?
As you say, only when the new parameter is actually used. But that will cause build failures when warnings are treated as errors.
If yes, a big enough one to make us prefer patch2?
Yes, I think so. And as mentioned above, it is similar to how other LIBXL_HAVE_ is handled.
Patch2 it is then: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-06/msg03930.html 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)