On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 07:05:03PM +0200, Rafael Fonseca wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:06 PM Pavel Mores <pmores@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > By the way, the approach taken here with bhyveDriver{Lock,Unlock}() might make
> > sense with the whole series - implement e.g. virMutexInit() in terms of
> > g_mutex_init() in the first phase and only then replace the actual
> > virMutexInit() calls if considered beneficial...
>
> So you mean one patch doing 's/virMutex/GMutex' and then inside
> virMutex*() we call the g_mutex_*() equivalent? And maybe make
> virMutex*() `inline`?
Yes - I mean, I'm not familiar enough with this to be sure off-hand that just
doing a literal find & replace would work with no undesired side-effects, but
conceptually yes, that's the idea.
That's just a thought though - taking that approach would have broken the
refactor into two more manageable & testable chunks but seeing as you've done
the hard work already, there's no need to rework the series just because of me.
:-)
pvl
