From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49050 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q0Caw-00083R-4g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Q0Cau-0003cl-Ut
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:25 -0400
Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:65190)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Q0Cau-0003cY-Mv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:24 -0400
Received: by iym7 with SMTP id 7so3157271iym.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D820293.6020002@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:46:11 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/15] QAPI Round 1 (core code generator)
	(v2)
References: <1299884745-521-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<20110316113428.21c599a3@doriath>	<4D80DE65.5080800@codemonkey.ws>
	<4D81FCDA.6060601@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D81FCDA.6060601@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.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: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

On 03/17/2011 07:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> The way this is typically handled is that signals tend to pass
>> structures instead of lots of fields.  For instance, most of the GDK
>> events just pass a structure for the event (like GdkButtonEvent).
> Can we do that with existing events or would we break the external
> interface because we'd have to nest everything one level deeper?

We have to introduce new versions of existing events anyway so we can 
make sure to nest the structures appropriately.  I think BLOCK_IO_ERROR 
is the only one that isn't doing this today FWIW.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Kevin
>