On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:19:27PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 18/09/2015 15:19, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > + QIO_CHANNEL_FEATURE_FD_PASS = (1 << 0), > > + QIO_CHANNEL_FEATURE_SHUTDOWN = (1 << 1), > > + QIO_CHANNEL_FEATURE_DELAY = (1 << 2), > > + QIO_CHANNEL_FEATURE_CORK = (1 << 3), > > TCP_NODELAY and TCP_CORK are just hints; I think it is okay to just > ignore them if not supported. You obviously disagree, so the question > is why? :)
Well I was just trying not to second guess what future uses we might have of the QIOChannel API, so I went for the approach of providing a way to probe any optional features upfront. Code doesn't have to use this if it doesn't want to - it can just ignore errors from the API call later. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
