From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54781 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKVWg-0006IJ-NT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:57:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OKVWb-0001Cg-Ps
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:57:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60199)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OKVWb-0001CY-JH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:57:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4C08EA1B.3040002@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:57:15 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/16] clean up vl.c code
References: <1275583692-11678-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>	<m3bpbr8az0.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<4C08B80F.4040401@redhat.com>
	<m3mxvb2etn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3mxvb2etn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 06/04/10 13:54, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 06/04/10 10:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> I like moving stuff out of vl.c in general.  Your moves of entire
>>> functions look like a win to me.  I have doubts about spreading the
>>> option switch over three files, though.
>>
>> The problem is right now there are too many OS specific options, but
>> having the #ifdefs plastered all over to enable/disable them accordingly
>> is just a nightmare and is prone to leave in inconsistent behavior for
>> various OSes. See the set_proc_name() stuff for an example.
> 
> I doubt spreading option code over separate files will help consistency.
> 
> I suspect the true root of the problem is having (too many) OS-specific
> options in the first place.  What about parsing options the same
> everywhere, calling out to OS-specific functions to do the actual work?
> Let them fail with "can't do this on this OS".

That is a possibility which I did consider, but it would end up in far
more os specific functions for simple assignments etc. I modeled it the
way I did similar to how we handle ioctl calls in the kernel.

If there is strong feeling we should do it this way instead, I can
change the code to do it this way instead. I am not married to the
current approach, I just find it the lesser evil.

Cheers,
Jes