On Thu, 02 May 2013 10:05:08 +0800 Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> δΊ 2013-4-30 3:05, Luiz Capitulino ει: > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:46:57 +0200 > > Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 05:31:15PM +0800, Wenchao Xia wrote: > >>> @@ -2586,10 +2585,12 @@ void do_info_snapshots(Monitor *mon, const QDict > >>> *qdict) > >>> } > >>> > >>> if (total > 0) { > >>> - monitor_printf(mon, "%s\n", bdrv_snapshot_dump(buf, sizeof(buf), > >>> NULL)); > >>> + bdrv_snapshot_dump(NULL); > >>> + monitor_printf(mon, "\n"); > >> > >> Luiz: any issue with mixing monitor_printf(mon) and > >> monitor_vprintf(cur_mon) calls? I guess there was a reason for > >> explicitly passing mon instead of relying on cur_mon. > > > > where are they being mixed? > > > bdrv_snapshot_dump() used a global variable "cur_mon" inside, instead > of let caller pass in a explicit montior* "mon", I guess that is the > question. I'd have to see the code to tell, but yes, what Stefan described is the best practice for the Monitor.