From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44679) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEdAg-0004cF-PD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:35:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEdAf-0006t5-MR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:35:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14711) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEdAf-0006st-0U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:35:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:37:14 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20120920093714.GB10884@redhat.com> References: <1347562697-15411-1-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <1347562697-15411-4-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <20120920060354.GC5721@redhat.com> <505ADA81.5040003@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <505ADA81.5040003@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] Fix address handling in inet_nonblocking_connect List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Orit Wasserman Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, akong@redhat.com On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:57:37AM +0300, Orit Wasserman wrote: > On 09/20/2012 09:03 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> @@ -526,16 +592,19 @@ int inet_connect(const char *str, Error **errp) > >> return sock; > >> } > >> > >> - > >> -int inet_nonblocking_connect(const char *str, bool *in_progress, > >> - Error **errp) > >> +int inet_nonblocking_connect(const char *str, ConnectHandler *callback, > >> + void *opaque, bool *in_progress, Error **errp) > >> { > > > > Would be nice to have some documentation here. > > Something like "on immediate success or immediate > > failure, in_progress is set to false, in that case > > callback is not invoked". > of course. > > > > If you look at it this way, this API is hard to > > use right. I'd like to suggest we get rid of > > in_progress flag: return -1 on error and > > return >=0 and invoke callback on immediate success. > > > we can even take it further and always invoke the callback > (even for immediate error), this way the user of the function > can put all the error/success handling in the callback function. > > Orit Yes but I don't think this is a good idea: there's value in reporting immediate error directly to the user when command was invoked, this is more user-friendly. Not so for immediate success since that is only a step in the migration process. -- MST