On 10/13/20 7:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 13/10/20 19:17, Claudio Fontana wrote: >>> This is definitely better, but I'll defer to Kevin with respect to the >>> naming of the function; having a bdrv_* function that has nothing to do >>> with the block layer is still smelly of a sub-optimal API, and I'm not >>> sure why the API change belongs in the series. >>> >>> Paolo >>> >> Hi Paolo, >> >> I am not attached to the specific name, if someone has a better naming / >> proposes a better prefix I will replace of course. > > Can you just unbreak TCG in this series, and we can then revisit the > topic of functional code in stubs later? > > Paolo > >
Hi Paolo, probably just a typo there, it's non-tcg (--disable-tcg) that's broken, not TCG. If nothing else would be acceptable and we are in a hurry, sure lets close the nose and do it, it's just a tiny bit of some duplicated code in stubs. I'd prefer if we have something a bit better that's all, but if this is hurting badly lets do it! Ciao, Claudio
