From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54491) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbuKJ-0001fY-Sq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:34:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbuKB-0000eb-Ho for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:33:55 -0500 Received: from greensocs.com ([87.106.252.221]:59250 helo=s15328186.onlinehome-server.info) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbuKB-0000eS-Ab for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:33:47 -0500 Message-ID: <50AF8957.8010509@greensocs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:33:59 +0100 From: Konrad Frederic MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1353595852-30776-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <1353595852-30776-3-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <20121123122941.GA29800@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <50AF86F7.5070508@greensocs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] virtio-pci : add a virtio-bus interface List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, e.voevodin@samsung.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de On 23/11/2012 15:26, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 November 2012 14:23, Konrad Frederic wrote: >> On 23/11/2012 13:34, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 23 November 2012 12:29, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>>> Eventually VirtIOBindings can probably be inlined into VirtioBusInfo. I >>>> don't see a need for separate structs. >>> I agree. It might (or might not) be convenient to retain it >>> temporarily while converting all the transports, but >>> VirtIOBindings is part of the old code which we're trying >>> to refactor here, and I'd expect it to go away when we're done. >> Yes, for the moment, I didn't refactor this VirtIOBindings, so it >> is better to separate struct to keep the virtiodevice binding function. > Where you're deliberately not changing something as a temporary > step you need to comment it to make that clear. Otherwise > people trying to review the code won't be able to tell... > > -- PMM Ok, sorry for that. Fred