From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41567) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sw87E-0002bW-R5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:47:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sw87A-00084c-Tl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:47:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16831) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sw87A-00084U-Lu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:47:40 -0400 Message-ID: <50179BA6.9000507@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:47:34 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1343127865-16608-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1343127865-16608-5-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <50169E93.1020502@redhat.com> <5016A2C4.2020206@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5016A2C4.2020206@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/47] block: add block_job_query List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: jcody@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com Am 30.07.2012 17:05, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 30/07/2012 16:47, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>>> +BlockJobInfo *block_job_query(BlockJob *job) >>>> +{ >>>> + BlockJobInfo *info = g_new(BlockJobInfo, 1); >>>> + info->type = g_strdup(job->job_type->job_type); >>>> + info->device = g_strdup(bdrv_get_device_name(job->bs)); >>>> + info->len = job->len; >>>> + info->offset = job->offset; >>>> + info->speed = job->speed; >>>> + return info; >>>> +} >> Why did you convert the initialisation to separate statement? If you >> really want to do this, I think using g_new0 would be safer now, but I >> actually like compound literals better. > > Later on I will have some more initialization beyond the list of fields, > so I preferred an explicit list. I can change it back if you prefer. What I'm really interested in is having zero-initialisation for any not explicitly initialised fields, just to be on the safe side. You can do that with g_new0() or with compound literals, that's a matter of taste. My taste happens to prefer the latter, but I won't criticise a patch based on taste as long as it's doing the same thing functionally. Kevin