Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
> 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()?
Works for me.
> Or should we start exporting monitor names as 'mon_' to make them short?
Fine with me, but not in my patch series, it's plenty long already :)
