From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/15] libxc/progress: Extend the
	progress interface
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:55:13 +0100
Message-ID: <1429095313.15516.193.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1428686167-8279-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1428686167-8279-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1428686167-8279-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 18:15 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Not everything which needs reporting as progress comes with a range.  Extend
> the interface to allow reporting of a single statement.
> 
> The programming interface now looks like:
>   xc_set_progress_prefix()
>     set the prefix string to be used
>   xc_report_progress_single()
>     report a single action
>   xc_report_progress_step()
>     report $X of $Y
> 
> The new programming interface is implemented in a compatible way with the
> existing caller interface (by reporting a single action as "0 of 0").

I suppose the underlying motivation here is that there a difference
between this new xc_report_progress_step and calling xc_report/v? IOW
some difference between the semantics of the logger's ->vmessage and
->progress hooks. What is it though?

I suspected the distinction was in the automatic inclusion of
xch->currently_progress_reporting into the messages, but you appear to
make that non-mandatory below.

Speaking of which, I think it should be mandatory now to call
xc_set_progress_prefix as it was to call progress_start before, and that
both of your new functions should assert. Those who think they want to
use xc_report_progress_single without calling xc_set_progress_prefix
should be using xc_report() instead.

Ian.