On Mar 12 17:28, Alex Bennée wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
One nit below, but otherwise: Reviewed-by: Aaron Lindsay <aa...@os.amperecomputing.com> > --- > include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h b/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h > index ac1bb318da..09b235f0b4 100644 > --- a/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h > +++ b/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h > @@ -99,17 +99,36 @@ QEMU_PLUGIN_EXPORT int > qemu_plugin_install(qemu_plugin_id_t id, > const qemu_info_t *info, > int argc, char **argv); > > -/* > - * Prototypes for the various callback styles we will be registering > - * in the following functions. > +/** > + * typedef qemu_plugin_simple_cb_t - simple callback > + * @id: the unique qemu_plugin_id_t > + * > + * This call-back passes no information aside from the unique @id. Should we be consistent about always using 'callback' or 'call-back' instead of alternating? I tend to use 'callback', but I'm not sure I have a solid reason to prefer it. -Aaron > */ > typedef void (*qemu_plugin_simple_cb_t)(qemu_plugin_id_t id); > > +/** > + * typedef qemu_plugin_udata_cb_t - callback with user data > + * @id: the unique qemu_plugin_id_t > + * @userdata: a pointer to some user data supplied when the call-back > + * was registered. > + */ > typedef void (*qemu_plugin_udata_cb_t)(qemu_plugin_id_t id, void *userdata); > > +/** > + * typedef qemu_plugin_vcpu_simple_cb_t - vcpu callback > + * @id: the unique qemu_plugin_id_t > + * @vcpu_index: the current vcpu context > + */ > typedef void (*qemu_plugin_vcpu_simple_cb_t)(qemu_plugin_id_t id, > unsigned int vcpu_index); > > +/** > + * typedef qemu_plugin_vcpu_udata_cb_t - vcpu callback > + * @vcpu_index: the current vcpu context > + * @userdata: a pointer to some user data supplied when the call-back > + * was registered. > + */ > typedef void (*qemu_plugin_vcpu_udata_cb_t)(unsigned int vcpu_index, > void *userdata); > > -- > 2.20.1 >
