On 10/13/2016 03:48 AM, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > On 10/13/2016 10:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> No, I disagree. We shouldn't be worried about making intrusive changes >>>>>> to all invocations or declarations, if that leads to a simpler API. >>>> >>>> If VMStateInfo was meant for complete customization, then it was missing >>>> some parts. I think the API is indeed simpler. Just like >>>> definition for VMStateField. Not all of its fields are used all time. >> Code moves. We can decide how much customization to allow of VMStateInfo. >> >> You said it: "Not all of its fields are used all time". Likewise, not >> all arguments are used all time for get/put, but it's not an issue if they >> are still there! So this patch is good, but at the same time VMS_LINKED is >> pointless. >> >> Paolo >> > > I'm fine with this. I just think, it would be nice if the contract between > the vmstate-core and the client code implementing VMStateInfo callbacks > could be documented, including when are certain parameters valid, what > they stand for, and how are they supposed to be used for the next version of > the patch. Just to improve readability. Would this be OK with everybody? > > By the way the flag VMS_SINGLE is documented as ignored. Should we drop > it? > I will prepare the VMStateInfo and QTAIL stuff as a separated series. If indeed VMS_SINGLE is ignored, I can drop it here. It is similar to VMS_LINKED situation.
Thanks, Jianjun >
