On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:26:11PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > +SpiceAsyncCommand *push_spice_async_command(PCIQXLDevice *qxl,
> > + uint32_t async_io, int size)
>
> > +/* caller must call g_free */
> > +static SpiceAsyncCommand *pop_spice_async_command(PCIQXLDevice *qxl,
> > + uint64_t cookie)
> > +{
>
> push/pop naming implies stack-like operation, which isn't true though.
> pop will lookup by cookie. Also an explicit release function would be
> good (list unlink and g_free call can go there).
>
> Maybe have spice_async_cmd_{alloc,lookup,free} ?
>
Will do.
> Have you considered passing down a SpiceAsyncCommand pointer instead of
> the cookie value everywhere? Seems to be a bit cleaner and more
> future-proof to me. Not sure it buys us much in practice though, so
> maybe it isn't worth the trouble.
>
That would still require casting, since we want to ensure we can later
support 32 bit architectures, so the cookie size of uint64_t will
remain. I guess I'll do it.
> cheers,
> Gerd
