From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33491)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1RXUcD-0005NZ-I0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 04:13:38 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1RXUcC-0003mn-FT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 04:13:37 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33118)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1RXUcC-0003lu-7t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 04:13:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4EDC8BE7.1000402@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:16:23 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1322687028-29714-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<1322687028-29714-2-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<4ED7A2A1.80002@redhat.com> <4ED91D2E.4050308@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4ED91D2E.4050308@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/18] qom: add new dynamic property
 infrastructure based on Visitors
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>

Am 02.12.2011 19:47, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 12/01/2011 09:52 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 30.11.2011 22:03, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> +
>>> +void qdev_property_add(DeviceState *dev, const char *name, const char *type,
>>> +                       DevicePropertyEtter *get, DevicePropertyEtter *set,
>>> +                       DevicePropertyRelease *release, void *opaque,
>>> +                       Error **errp)
>>
>> How about letting the caller pass in a DeviceProperty for improved
>> readability and usability? Instead of memorizing the order of currently
>> eight parameters (could probably become more in the future) you can use
>> proper C99 initializers then.
> 
> This ends up making the code much more complex for the client if you try to 
> eliminate the opaque and replace it with the structure.  It becomes necessary to 
> do a dynamic allocation of the structure and then you also have to add a release 
> function.

Hm, why doesn't static allocation work with it?

> We could make the structure just contain the function pointers and not the 
> opaque but that doesn't seem very helpful to me.  It just adds a few extra lines 
> to the client code without a lot of gain.

I keep switching back and forth between mails to find out what these
parameters are supposed to mean (especially the NULL ones), so yes, I
think even passing just the name and function pointers this way would
improve readability.

Kevin