From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60767 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PzVdA-00017A-Ob
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:53:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1PzVd9-0003FW-9C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:53:52 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6218)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1PzVd9-0003FO-0k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:53:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4D7F7D65.50202@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:53:25 +0100
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1300192574-32644-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<1300192574-32644-2-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4D7F7C60.9050500@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4D7F7C60.9050500@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/7] Consolidate DisplaySurface allocation
	in qemu_alloc_display()
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org

On 03/15/11 15:49, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> index f4e4741..dec9a76 100644
>> --- a/console.h
>> +++ b/console.h
>> @@ -189,6 +189,9 @@ void register_displaystate(DisplayState *ds);
>>   DisplayState *get_displaystate(void);
>>   DisplaySurface* qemu_create_displaysurface_from(int width, int
>> height, int bpp,
>>                                                   int linesize,
>> uint8_t *data);
>> +DisplaySurface* qemu_alloc_display(DisplaySurface *surface, int width,
>> +                                   int height, int linesize,
>> +                                   PixelFormat pf, int newflags);
> 
> Is it really useful at all to return DisplaySurface?  When I see a
> return value of 'DisplaySurface *' and an alloc in the function name, I
> assume this function allocates a display surface but it's really
> allocating the framebuffer within a display surface.

I am not sure what is better here - if you have a better suggestion for
the name, I am all open. The reason it turned out this way is that there
are already other ways where the DisplaySurface itself can be allocated.

Cheers,
Jes