On 03/15/2010 03:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/11/2010 08:19 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:57 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
+struct QEMUNotifier
+{
+ void (*notify)(QEMUNotifier *notifier);
+};
I suggest combining this with QEMUBH.
I take it your not opposed to converting QEMUBH to be a QEMUNotifier?
If so, I'm happy to do it.
It's unclear to me why you've invented a new thing in the first place.
It's a better approximation of the command pattern because the command
is a single object as opposed to a tuple. Because the command is an
object, you can also do things like binding. For instance:
typedef struct IONotifier
{
Notifier parent;
void (*notify)(IONotifier *notifier, int fd);
int fd;
} IONotifier;
It's been a long day...
Which now gives you a notifier that has an fd bound to it's second
argument (which is pretty useful for IO dispatch).
You can do this with a tuple representation, but it gets awkward. One
could argue for formalizing the tuple as a struct but extending by
nesting becomes more complicated. Also, for the most part, you
already have a state for the command and embedding the object means
less dynamic memory allocation and less code to handle that.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
