From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57208) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEdYy-0007tj-2v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:00:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEdYs-0006kq-6f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:00:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEdYr-0006km-UJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:00:46 -0400 Message-ID: <505AE94C.8090702@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:00:44 +0300 From: Orit Wasserman MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1347562697-15411-1-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <1347562697-15411-4-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <20120920060354.GC5721@redhat.com> <505ADA81.5040003@redhat.com> <20120920093714.GB10884@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20120920093714.GB10884@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] Fix address handling in inet_nonblocking_connect List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, akong@redhat.com On 09/20/2012 12:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:57:37AM +0300, Orit Wasserman wrote: >> On 09/20/2012 09:03 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> @@ -526,16 +592,19 @@ int inet_connect(const char *str, Error **errp) >>>> return sock; >>>> } >>>> >>>> - >>>> -int inet_nonblocking_connect(const char *str, bool *in_progress, >>>> - Error **errp) >>>> +int inet_nonblocking_connect(const char *str, ConnectHandler *callback, >>>> + void *opaque, bool *in_progress, Error **errp) >>>> { >>> >>> Would be nice to have some documentation here. >>> Something like "on immediate success or immediate >>> failure, in_progress is set to false, in that case >>> callback is not invoked". >> of course. >>> >>> If you look at it this way, this API is hard to >>> use right. I'd like to suggest we get rid of >>> in_progress flag: return -1 on error and >>> return >=0 and invoke callback on immediate success. >>> >> we can even take it further and always invoke the callback >> (even for immediate error), this way the user of the function >> can put all the error/success handling in the callback function. >> >> Orit > > Yes but I don't think this is a good idea: > there's value in reporting immediate error > directly to the user when command was invoked, > this is more user-friendly. > Not so for immediate success since that is > only a step in the migration process. > > OK