On 01/18/2016 09:29 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 12.01.2016 um 19:02 hat John Snow geschrieben: >> >> >> On 01/12/2016 01:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/01/2016 18:57, John Snow wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/12/2016 03:46 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/01/2016 01:36, John Snow wrote: >>>>>> Instead of relying on peeking at bs->job, we want to explicitly get >>>>>> a reference to the job that was involved in this notifier callback. >>>>>> >>>>>> Extend the Notifier to include a job pointer, and include a reference >>>>>> to the job registering the callback. This cuts out a few more cases >>>>>> where we have to rely on bs->job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you just put the NotifierWithReturn inside the BackupBlockJob >>>>> struct, and use container_of to get from NWR to BackupBlockJob? >>>>> >>>>> Paolo >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's another way (including the notifier within the job vs. including >>>> the job within the notifier.) This one simply occurred to me first. Any >>>> strong benefit to that method, or just a matter of style? >>> >>> It's usually the one that is used with notifiers, no other reason. >> >> I'll follow convention, I just didn't bump into an example to model. > > This means that I should wait for a v2? (Hm, or is this Markus' area, > actually? Or Jeff's?) > > Otherwise, this series is: > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> >
I hadn't re-rolled just yet, it seems like a matter of taste but I usually defer to convention for predictability's sake. Waiting for Jeff, primarily. --js