On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:06 PM Pavel Mores <pmo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> By the way, the approach taken here with bhyveDriver{Lock,Unlock}() might make
> sense with the whole series - implement e.g. virMutexInit() in terms of
> g_mutex_init() in the first phase and only then replace the actual
> virMutexInit() calls if considered beneficial...So you mean one patch doing 's/virMutex/GMutex' and then inside virMutex*() we call the g_mutex_*() equivalent? And maybe make virMutex*() `inline`? Att. -- Rafael Fonseca
