From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38330) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLeRB-00064J-5I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:58:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLeR4-0002uo-Qf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:58:37 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42562) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WLeR4-0002uH-Jw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:58:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:58:26 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20140306145826.2d4410a5@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5318BAE9.2080706@redhat.com> References: <1388704234-22498-1-git-send-email-xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140106181809.64b77df3@redhat.com> <5318BAE9.2080706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH V2 0/5] add direct support of event in qapi schema List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, armbru@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, Wenchao Xia , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:14:01 -0700 Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/06/2014 04:18 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 07:10:29 +0800 > > Wenchao Xia wrote: > > > >> This series add support for tag/keyword 'event' in qapi-schema. > >> A new file was created to store some helper functions in patch 2, patch 4 is > >> the test case, patch 5 is a convert example. > >> > >> The implemention is done by generate API and a batch of parameters for each > >> event define, it doesn't generate a struture and visit function in the > >> background for every event, so it doesn't support nested structure in the > >> define to avoid trouble. A callback layer is added to control the behavior. > >> More detail can be found in patch 3's message and incode comments. > > > > The general approach seems good to me. Would be nice to get another > > reviewer though, maybe Eric and/or Michael. > > Just now looking at this thread. Is this still something that we want > in 2.0, or at this point are we late enough to delay to 2.1? We could get this in if we get it posted and fully reviewed before hard freeze (which is on March 12). But I'd suggest postponing to 2.1.