On 23 November 2012 14:23, Konrad Frederic <fred.kon...@greensocs.com> wrote: > On 23/11/2012 13:34, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 23 November 2012 12:29, Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@redhat.com> 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
