From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mfchv-0003vk-16 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:47:47 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mfchq-0003nM-0h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:47:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58674 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mfchp-0003ms-QK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:47:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12289) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mfchp-0003WN-AF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:47:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/29] Add wrappers to functions used by the Monitor References: <1250723280-3509-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <1250723280-3509-6-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> From: Markus Armbruster Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:47:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1250723280-3509-6-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> (Luiz Capitulino's message of "Wed\, 19 Aug 2009 20\:07\:36 -0300") Message-ID: <871vn1i2fp.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, avi@redhat.com Luiz Capitulino writes: > Some functions exported to be used by the Monitor as command > handlers are also called in other places as regular functions. > > When those functions got ported to use the Monitor dictionary > to pass argments, the callers will have to setup a dictionary > to be able to call them. > > To avoid this problem, this commit add wrappers to those functions, > so that we change the wrapper to accept the dictionary, letting > the current functions as is. > > The following wrappers are being added: > > - do_help_cmd() > - do_pci_device_hot_remove() > - qemu_loadvm() There's also do_cont(), but you solve that case differently in your PATCH 09/29: you pass NULL. Slightly dirty. Fine with me.