From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NGTOg-0002Rq-QL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:20:14 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NGTOb-0002Jg-KL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:20:13 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33723 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NGTOb-0002Ja-HK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:20:09 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11509)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1NGTOb-0004RU-1Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:20:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4B18C5F2.50100@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:18:58 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] Rename DriveInfo.onerror to
	on_write_error
References: <1259324739-6805-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>	<1259324739-6805-2-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<20091129104654.GB30150@redhat.com>
	<4B1817C7.3000804@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4B1817C7.3000804@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

Am 03.12.2009 20:55, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:25:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>   
>>> Either rename variables and functions to refer to write errors (which is what
>>> they actually do) or introduce a parameter to distinguish reads and writes.
>>>
>>>     
>> I prefer either to use two different functions or hide 0/1 parameter behind
>> a macro:
>>  #define drive_get_on_write_error(a) drive_get_on_error(a, 0);
>>   
> 
> Or a static inline.  But honestly, having three globally scoped 
> functions shouldn't be a problem.

Well, in the end, the callers already have some kind of is_read and just
pass it on. Would we really gain anything if they needed to put a
five-line if block there instead of a one-line function call (or maybe
two lines if they need to extract the is_read flag from somewhere)?

So, I'm happy to add your static inline functions, but I wouldn't like
to use them...

Kevin