From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NpjYi-0000zi-IU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:40:20 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49308 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NpjYi-0000zR-04
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:40:20 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1NpjYX-0006fq-Sl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:40:19 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13069)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1NpjYX-0006fN-20
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:40:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4B9900BB.70803@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:55 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1268239869-16058-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<201003111257.59828.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4B98EF51.7040905@redhat.com>
	<201003111358.23200.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201003111358.23200.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/7] Add support for generic notifier lists
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffman <kraxel@redhat.com>

On 03/11/2010 02:58 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>> On 03/11/2010 01:57 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>>> +struct QEMUNotifier
>>>
>>>>   +{
>>>>   +    void (*notify)(QEMUNotifier *notifier);
>>>>   +};
>>>
>>> I suggest combining this with QEMUBH.
>>
>> I didn't understand this suggestion exactly, but I think it's related
>> that I didn't understand the advantage of making QEMUNotifier a struct.
>
> My point is that we already have a mechanism for providing event notification
> callbacks, specifically QEMUBH.  Why invent a new one?

QEMUBH seems seriously overengineered for this simple task.

Paolo