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

Reply via email to