From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36498) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFtis-00072Y-PA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFtir-0001YP-Kj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:34 -0400 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:49535) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFtir-0001YB-HS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:33 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:32 -0400 Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857E26E8041 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r2DM0U8x153088 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:30 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r2DM0TIc008005 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:00:30 -0300 Message-ID: <5140F6F8.3080101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:00:24 -0400 From: Stefan Berger MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1363200988-17865-1-git-send-email-jschopp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1363200988-17865-6-git-send-email-jschopp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130313205200.GA6188@vm> In-Reply-To: <20130313205200.GA6188@vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/9] qapi_sized_buffer List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: mdroth Cc: Joel Schopp , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Tsirkin On 03/13/2013 04:52 PM, mdroth wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 01:56:24PM -0500, Joel Schopp wrote: >> Add a sized buffer interface to qapi. > Isn't this just a special case of the visit_*_carray() interfaces? We > should avoid new interfaces if possible, since it adds to feature > disparities between visitor implementations. Yes, it's a special case and carray seems more general. However, I don't understand the interface of carray. It has a start_carray with all parameters given, then a next_carray and an end_carray. Why do we need multiple calls if one call (start_carray) could be used to serialize all the data already? Regards, Stefan