From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctbYF-0008Mp-Q7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:59:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctbYF-0004Bt-1Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:59:51 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1490879707-6060-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1490879707-6060-7-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <88188f21-a5b3-2e0f-99f1-66b13d772b96@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:59:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <88188f21-a5b3-2e0f-99f1-66b13d772b96@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:36:40 -0500") Message-ID: <87mvc2zu74.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v2 for-2.9 06/10] qapi-schema: SocketAddressFlat variants 'vsock' and 'fd' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, mitake.hitoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp, jcody@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, namei.unix@gmail.com Eric Blake writes: > On 03/30/2017 08:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Note that the new variants are impossible in qemu_gluster_glfs_init(), >> because the gconf->server can only come from qemu_gluster_parse_uri() >> or qemu_gluster_parse_json(), and neither can create anything but >> 'inet' or 'unix'. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz >> --- >> block/gluster.c | 2 ++ >> qapi-schema.json | 19 ++++++++----------- >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > >> -# 2. SocketAddressFlat supports only types 'unix' and 'inet', because >> -# that's what its current users need. >> +# This is just like SocketAddress, except it's a flat union rather >> +# than a simple union. Nicer because it avoids nesting (i.e. more {}) >> +# on the wire. > > I know that you are explaining that it is "nesting" which means "more > {}", but it is SocketAddress that has the extra {}, not > SocketAddressFlat. I wonder if it reads any better as: > > Nicer because it avoids nesting on the wire (i.e. this form has fewer {}). Sold! (Except I'm peeling off the parenthesis)