From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 V2] kvm tools: Initialize and use VESA and VNC Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:22:56 +0300 Message-ID: <4DDB9510.8030501@redhat.com> References: <1306149553-26793-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <1306149553-26793-5-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <20110523113824.GE4042@elte.hu> <4DDB6E55.8080408@redhat.com> <20110524085024.GA31453@elte.hu> <4DDB75EC.7000300@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Sasha Levin , john@jfloren.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, asias.hejun@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, prasadjoshi124@gmail.com To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18345 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754758Ab1EXLXP (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 07:23:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/24/2011 12:55 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > I know portability is not relevant to tools/kvm/, but using unportable > > tricks for the sake of using them is a direct way to NIH. But oh well all > > of tools/kvm/ is NIH after all. :) > > Hmm? > > The point is to follow Linux kernel conventions and idioms (and share > code) as much as possible so it's familiar to devs who are already > working on the kernel. That's why section tricks seem more appropriate > than using constructor to me. Or is there some technical advantage to > using constructors? You get to reuse infrastructure that's already there. Things like using sections and s/uint64_t/u64/ look anti-reuse to me. Userspace isn't the kernel, for better or for worse. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function