From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcAIN-0003M5-I5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:46:35 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcAIL-0003Lh-4I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:46:34 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50383 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KcAIK-0003Le-Vn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:46:33 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249]:54168) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KcAIK-00038v-Mv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:46:32 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so163317and.130 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48C34057.4000402@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:45:43 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Introduce #define QEMU_ASYNC_EVENTLOOP to simplify #ifdefs References: <69b245c5aebe9d170b7641a266d5700f9c9420c0.1219763627.git.Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> <3a9dd4a19653dfe2f1c32f85482c06566a70eb32.1219763627.git.Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> <48B707FF.3030600@codemonkey.ws> <18615.49630.968849.783895@mariner.uk.xensource.com> In-Reply-To: <18615.49630.968849.783895@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Laurent Vivier Ian Jackson wrote: > Anthony Liguori writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Introduce #define QEMU_ASYNC_EVENTLOOP to simplify #ifdefs"): > >> I don't understand why we need two defines in the first place. I >> noticed in the Makefile that we have rules to build qemu-nbd- objects >> and qemu-img- objects, but I don't see why that should be necessary. >> > > Well, the original #define was called QEMU_IMG and the objects were > called qemu-img-*. Surely we didn't expect Laurent to reuse those ? > The names clearly indicated not to. > Right, I can't see a reason why we would need to compile a single object different for qemu-img and qemu-nbd. I think there's something fowl there. > Perhaps it would be better to reorganise this some more and have > qemu-syncioutil-*.o but I think to avoid the best being the enemy of > the good I would argue that my patch should be applied in the > meantime. > Half solutions often mask the underlying problem because people think it's fixed. I only think it's appropriate to do this sort of thing if the amount of work to do it right is prohibitively high. In this case, someone just has to do a quick audit of the Makefile and respective .c files or Laurent just needs to explain why he did it that way :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori > Ian. > > >