qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] char: Add a QemuChrHandlers struct to initi


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] char: Add a QemuChrHandlers struct to initialise chardev handlers
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:28:19 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15

On 02/10/2012 07:19 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
Instead of passing each handler in the qemu_add_handlers() function,
create a struct of handlers that can be passed to the function instead.

Signed-off-by: Amit Shah<address@hidden>

Why?

---
  gdbstub.c               |    9 +++++++--
  hw/ccid-card-passthru.c |   11 +++++++----
  hw/debugcon.c           |    2 +-
  hw/escc.c               |    9 +++++++--
  hw/etraxfs_ser.c        |   13 +++++++++----
  hw/grlib_apbuart.c      |   12 +++++++-----
  hw/ivshmem.c            |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
  hw/lm32_juart.c         |    8 +++++++-
  hw/lm32_uart.c          |    8 +++++++-
  hw/mcf_uart.c           |    9 +++++++--
  hw/milkymist-uart.c     |    8 +++++++-
  hw/pl011.c              |    9 +++++++--
  hw/pxa2xx.c             |   13 +++++++++----
  hw/qdev-properties.c    |    2 +-
  hw/serial.c             |    9 +++++++--
  hw/sh_serial.c          |   12 +++++++++---
  hw/spapr_vty.c          |    9 ++++++---
  hw/strongarm.c          |   12 +++++++-----
  hw/usb-serial.c         |    9 +++++++--
  hw/virtio-console.c     |    9 +++++++--
  hw/xen_console.c        |   16 +++++++++++-----
  hw/xilinx_uartlite.c    |   11 +++++++++--
  monitor.c               |   18 ++++++++++++++----
  net/slirp.c             |    8 ++++++--
  qemu-char.c             |   32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
  qemu-char.h             |   12 ++++++++----
  usb-redir.c             |    9 +++++++--
  27 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)

It's not a win in terms of code size. If you plan on introducing additional handlers, perhaps you should include this in that series where it's more appropriately justified.

As a change on it's own, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori



reply via email to

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