From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Npj8P-0007GK-Jr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:13:09 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58047 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Npj8P-0007G8-7h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:13:09 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Npj8N-0004CA-Uy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:13:09 -0500
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.149]:19372)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Npj8L-0004Ba-FQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:13:07 -0500
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so15614qwf.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B98FA68.7000901@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:12:56 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/7] Add support for generic notifier lists
References: <1268239869-16058-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<4B98F1F0.7040105@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B98F1F0.7040105@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffman <kraxel@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

On 03/11/2010 07:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 06:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> +
>> +#ifndef QEMU_NOTIFY_H
>> +#define QEMU_NOTIFY_H
>> +
>> +#include "qemu-queue.h"
>> +
>> +typedef struct QEMUNotifier QEMUNotifier;
>> +typedef struct QEMUNotifierNode QEMUNotifierNode;
>> +
>> +struct QEMUNotifier
>> +{
>> +    void (*notify)(QEMUNotifier *notifier);
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct QEMUNotifierNode
>> +{
>> +    QEMUNotifier *notifier;
>> +    QTAILQ_ENTRY(QEMUNotifierNode) node;
>> +};
>> +
>> +typedef struct QEMUNotifierList
>> +{
>> +    QTAILQ_HEAD(, QEMUNotifierNode) notifiers;
>> +} QEMUNotifierList;
>> +
>> +#define QEMU_NOTIFIER_LIST_INITIALIZER(head) \
>> +    { QTAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER((head).notifiers) }
>> +
>> +void qemu_notifier_list_init(QEMUNotifierList *list);
>> +
>> +void qemu_notifier_list_add(QEMUNotifierList *list, QEMUNotifier 
>> *notifier);
>> +
>> +void qemu_notifier_list_remove(QEMUNotifierList *list, QEMUNotifier 
>> *notifier);
>> +
>> +void qemu_notifier_list_notify(QEMUNotifierList *list);
>> +
>
>
> Why the qemu_ prefixes everywhere?  They make sense when wrapping 
> library calls, but in native qemu code they're just noise.

I don't disagree, but we do this a lot in code today.  I think if folks 
generally agreed that qemu prefixes were just noise, we should make a 
concerted effort in the future to prevent people from introducing more 
of them and make a note in CODING_STYLE.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori