qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v6 09/27] monitor: create monitor dedicate iothrea


From: Peter Xu
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v6 09/27] monitor: create monitor dedicate iothread
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:34:24 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:31:18PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 02:45 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> 
> Grammar in the subject:
> 
> s/monitor dedicate/a dedicated monitor/
> 
> > Create one IOThread for the monitors, prepared to handle all the
> > input/output IOs using existing iothread framework.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  monitor.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > 
> 
> > @@ -207,6 +208,11 @@ struct Monitor {
> >      QTAILQ_ENTRY(Monitor) entry;
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* Let's add monitor global variables to this struct. */
> 
> Is this comment a placeholder for future additions in later patches of
> the series?  If so, a temporary TODO or FIXME might make it easier to
> track that this patch is part of a series; if not, you could delete the
> comment altogether.

mon_iothread is the first element of struct already so IMHO it's not
really a TODO.  The series will add some more things inside though
(and hoping that it can be a good place to unify global monitor stuff
in the future).  Actually the comment is a suggestion from Stefan and
either with/without it works for me.

> 
> > +static struct {
> > +    IOThread *mon_iothread;
> > +} mon_global;
> > +
> 
> Up to you what to do about the comment; tweaking it (or leaving it
> unchanged) is not a semantic change, so I'm fine with:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

So I'm taking the R-b if you won't disagree and keep everything
untouched.  Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]