On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:55:35 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 04/05/2012 19:13, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>>> > >> This breaks QAPI ABI. > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> Not really a breaker for this series, but it shows how we are not > >>>> > >> yet > >>>> > >> ready to keep a stable ABI (as opposed to API), and thus any > >>> > > > >>> > > Having to add a new enum every time a new value is needed is going to > >>> > > be fun. > >> > > >> > I think Paolo's point was that new values should be added at the end of > >> > the list. Your patch, as written, changes 'watchdog' from 13th to 14th; > >> > what you should have done is left 'watchdog' at 13th and made > >> > 'suspended' be 14th. > > > > We don't have a stable QAPI ABI today, and if I'm not missing the point > > here he's advocating against it. > > Yes, but Eric's solution would be fine. I'm afraid not, we generate a _MAX enum for bound checking. Yet another argument in favor of your first call.
