From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52566)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TG8xD-00088g-KE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:44:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TG8x7-0007mk-Rz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:44:07 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51748)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TG8x7-0007mg-Kg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:44:01 -0400
Message-ID: <5060639A.3080204@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:43:54 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1348411747-29804-1-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com>
	<1348411747-29804-3-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com>
	<87y5jzrbke.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<506030DF.5020906@redhat.com> <5060622A.2020500@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5060622A.2020500@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/4] Separate inet_connect into
 inet_connect (blocking) and inet_nonblocking_connect
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: Orit Wasserman <owasserm@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, akong@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com

Il 24/09/2012 15:37, Orit Wasserman ha scritto:
>>> >> We usually tack function comments to the function definition, not the
>>> >> declaration.  Matter of taste.  I like it next to the definition,
>>> >> because that improves the comment's chances to get updated along with
>>> >> the function.
>> > 
>> > Not necessarily, see main-loop.h for example.
>> > 
>> > /me would like more of these...
> too late :) 

No big deal!

Paolo