On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:37:35PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:31:15PM -0400, Dave Allan wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:49:46PM -0400, Dave Allan wrote: > > > On 04/07/2010 10:17 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >On 04/06/2010 06:59 AM, Dave Allan wrote: > > > >>>Then again, fixing the type for your new method would imply fixing the > > > >>>typing of virAlloc and friends as well. > > > > > > > >Daniel's arguments are convincing; it's okay to keep the ugly cast in > > > >the implementation if it makes the header easier to use without having > > > >to embed a cast in the #define. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > >>Is everybody ok with having this allocator, btw? > > > > > > > >You have my ACK, but I'm only a (small) fraction of everybody. But > > > >since no one is using them yet, is it worth waiting until after 0.8.0 to > > > >push? > > > > > > Waiting is a good idea; the patch has been hanging around my > > > development box for weeks, so there's no hurry. > > > > > > Dave > > > > Can I get another ack for this patch now that 0.8.0 is out? > > ACK > > Daniel Ok, thanks. Pushed. Dave -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list