From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40333 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PzsBV-0002jr-8G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:58:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PzsBU-0004nA-4Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:58:49 -0400 Received: from mail-yi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]:62512) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pzs35-0002bg-25 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:50:07 -0400 Received: by yib19 with SMTP id 19so824964yib.4 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4D80CE17.7010005@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:49:59 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1299884745-521-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <20110316113428.21c599a3@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20110316113428.21c599a3@doriath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/15] QAPI Round 1 (core code generator) (v2) List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , Markus Armbruster , Adam Litke On 03/16/2011 03:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > +## > +# @put_event: > +# > +# Disconnect a signal. This command is used to disconnect from a signal based > +# on the handle returned by a signal accessor. > +# > +# @tag: the handle returned by a signal accessor. > +# > +# Returns: Nothing on success. > +# If @tag is not a valid handle, InvalidParameterValue > +# > +# Since: 0.15.0 > > The name 'signal' (at least today) doesn't make sense on the wire protocol, > 'put_event' probably doesn't make sense in the C library, nor does 'event'. > > Another detail is that, event extension is more important than command > extension, because it's probably going to happen. I think it would be very > bad to add new events just because we wanted to add a new field. What if events were always passed a single struct, with the first field being a bitmask saying which (or how many) fields have been filled? It is quite ugly to work that way when calling functions, but it's not too bad when you are writing the callees. And it's the code generator that writes the function calls in the case of libqmp... Paolo