From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55002)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TC5CM-0003Az-Rh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:55:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TC5CJ-0004Bo-00
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:54:58 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44832)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TC5CI-0004Bh-Mm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:54:54 -0400
Message-ID: <50519986.3040508@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:29:58 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1347349912-15611-1-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com>
	<1347349912-15611-2-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com>
	<504EF077.9080107@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQmH3DL8mt9znRqbA81OvorB-3FUSmV=ETOAt+vekMiZQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<505195CF.8040002@redhat.com> <50519716.5030402@redhat.com>
	<505197FA.1060502@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <505197FA.1060502@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V3 01/11] atomic: introduce atomic
	operations
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 13/09/2012 10:23, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>> > But I don't really see the point in wrapping atomically-accessed
>> > variables in a struct.  
> Preventing accidental naked access (to be reported in patch review as
> "wardrobe malfunction").

Yeah, I understand that, but it's rare enough that I don't think it's
worth the complication.  With C++ and templates it would be a different
story.

Paolo