On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:19:49 +0100
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:55:47 +0100
> > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> monitor.c | 5 +++++
> >> monitor.h | 2 ++
> >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> >> index a4263af..5c87a98 100644
> >> --- a/monitor.c
> >> +++ b/monitor.c
> >> @@ -194,6 +194,11 @@ static inline int monitor_ctrl_mode(const Monitor
> >> *mon)
> >> return (mon->flags & MONITOR_USE_CONTROL);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +int in_qmp_mon(void)
> >> +{
> >> + return cur_mon && monitor_ctrl_mode(cur_mon);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > Afaik, all public monitor functions begin with 'monitor_'. While it's
> > debatable if it's a good name, let's keep the consistency.
> >
> > Also, I'm going to rename monitor_ctrl_mode() to something like
> > monitor_qmp_mode() or monitor_is_qmp(). In this case the difference with
> > in_qmp_mon() is not clear.
>
> Care to suggest a name?
Maybe, monitor_ctrl_mode() should be monitor_is_qmp() and the new one
monitor_cur_is_qmp()?
Or should we start exporting monitor names as 'mon_' to make them short?
