From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38563 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PchwM-0004TD-RD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:23:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PchwF-0001ii-Od for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:23:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52246) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PchwF-0001ie-HW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:23:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:53:05 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20110111172305.GB4092@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <0f9330ee99fb9d11639a98d5fb9c01625a15822e.1294743490.git.amit.shah@redhat.com> <4D2C6BB2.206@redhat.com> <20110111153818.GA4092@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4D2C7D48.6060000@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D2C7D48.6060000@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/5] char: Introduce char_set/remove_fd_handlers() List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: qemu list , Paul Brook On (Tue) Jan 11 2011 [16:54:48], Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 01/11/11 16:38, Amit Shah wrote: > >On (Tue) Jan 11 2011 [15:39:46], Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >>On 01/11/11 12:10, Amit Shah wrote: > >>>Introduce a char-specific wrapper to qemu_set_fd_handler functions. > >>>This wrapper is useful to add / remove a write handler easily. Write > >>>handlers are only used when the backend is blocked and cannot receive > >>>any more input. > >> > >>I'd suggest to add flags to enable/disable handlers to > >>IOHandlerRecord instead. And helper functions to set/clear them of > >>course. > >> > >>With that in place you also can move the handlers to a separate > >>struct simliar to the new QemuChrHandlers struct from patch #1. > > > >I'm planning to do that later -- when more backends get involved, which > >have multiple fds (one for in, one for out). > > Moving the handlers to a separate struct is clearly a incremental > cleanup which can follow later. Using enable/disable flags will > probably simplify the interfaces for the non-blocking mode and thus > simplify the whole patch series so I think this should be done now. Agree -- but it looks to be a big patch. I have some initial work done, and hence am not converting anything other than unix/tcp backends. The proposed interface here is local to this file, and just a couple of callers. No big deal to change it once this is in. (The struct for that will look like: struct fd_handler { int fd; IOHandler *read; IOHandler *write; IOCanReadHandler *read_poll; bool read_enabled, write_enabled, read_poll_enabled; void (*set_read_handler)(IOHandler *read_handler); void (*set_write_handler)(IOHandler *write_handler); void (*set_readpoll_handler)(IOCanReadHandler *read_poll_handler); } This has to be embedded in the CharDriverState for each fd for each backend. Also: we also want to be able to select() on all fds so that we can detect disconnection events as they happen. So we also need an array somewhere.) Amit