From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52416) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XEvpG-0004vb-9x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 03:40:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XEvpA-0004Ph-0G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 03:39:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XEvp9-0004PV-PC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 03:39:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:09:20 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20140806073920.GA25951@grmbl.mre> References: <874mxs32vv.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20140804114500.GP18947@grmbl.mre> <874mxqyt6h.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874mxqyt6h.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] virtio-serial: create a linked list of all active devices List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Amos Kong , qemu list , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= On (Wed) 06 Aug 2014 [09:27:02], Markus Armbruster wrote: > Amit Shah writes: > > > On (Mon) 04 Aug 2014 [13:33:56], Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Amit Shah writes: > >> > >> > To ensure two virtserialports don't get added to the system with the > >> > same 'name' parameter, we need to access all the ports on all the > >> > devices added, and compare the names. > >> > > >> > We currently don't have a list of all VirtIOSerial devices added to the > >> > system. This commit adds a simple linked list in which devices are put > >> > when they're initialized, and removed when they go away. > > > > > > > >> > +struct VirtIOSerialDevices { > >> > + QLIST_HEAD(, VirtIOSerial) devices; > >> > +} vserdevices; > >> > + > >> > >> Any particular reason for stuffing the list into a struct? > > > > Not strictly needed for this patch alone, but I think it's cleaner to > > keep it this way, and when something else comes up that needs a > > per-device variable, this list will be around. > > Adding the struct when it's needed will be easy, so why pay the > notational overhead now? True. > > Also, this is also the > > way it's done in the kernel, so that uniformity helps as well. > > Two uglies make a pretty? Hah! Amit