On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:24:44AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/15/2010 08:20 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 12/14/2010 07:34 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: > > > > In addition to Hu's comments, and the fact that you are probably going > > to revise the exposed interface anyways, here's some additional points. > > One other point - how does this relate to the timeouts already > implemented in places like daemon/event.c or src/util/event.c? Are > those implementations already sufficient for your needs without having > to write a new implementation? Or conversely, should your patch series > be lengthened into rewriting those interfaces to take advantage of your > new implementation in order to ease maintenance by focusing all timeout > code into a single reusable interface? In other words, I'm still > seeking a bit more justification for this patch.
IMHO it should be sufficient for this new code to simply call the existing virEventAddTimeout() API, and run the event loop in the background thread. Daniel -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
