On 03/11/2010 08:42 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/11/2010 04:36 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/11/2010 02:42 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/11/2010 03:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I didn't understand the advantage of making QEMUNotifier a
struct. Instead of using container_of, reusing QEMUBHFunc (re
On 03/11/2010 04:36 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/11/2010 02:42 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/11/2010 03:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I didn't understand the advantage of making QEMUNotifier a
struct. Instead of using container_of, reusing QEMUBHFunc (renamed to
QEMUCallbackFunc maybe?) in QEMUNo
On 03/11/2010 02:42 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/11/2010 03:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I didn't understand the advantage of making QEMUNotifier a
struct. Instead of using container_of, reusing QEMUBHFunc (renamed to
QEMUCallbackFunc maybe?) in QEMUNotifierNode [...]
seems cleaner. You would plac
On 03/11/2010 07:25 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/11/2010 01:57 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
+struct QEMUNotifier
> +{
> +void (*notify)(QEMUNotifier *notifier);
> +};
I suggest combining this with QEMUBH.
I didn't understand this suggestion exactly, but I think it's related
that I didn't u
On 03/11/2010 03:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/11/2010 01:57 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
+struct QEMUNotifier
> +{
> +void (*notify)(QEMUNotifier *notifier);
> +};
I suggest combining this with QEMUBH.
I didn't understand this suggestion exactly, but I think it's related
that I didn't u
