At 12/15/2010 11:32 PM, Daniel P. Berrange Write: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:24:44AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 12/15/2010 08:20 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 12/14/2010 07:34 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: >>> >>> In addition to Hu's comments, and the fact that you are probably going >>> to revise the exposed interface anyways, here's some additional points. >> >> One other point - how does this relate to the timeouts already >> implemented in places like daemon/event.c or src/util/event.c? Are >> those implementations already sufficient for your needs without having >> to write a new implementation? Or conversely, should your patch series >> be lengthened into rewriting those interfaces to take advantage of your >> new implementation in order to ease maintenance by focusing all timeout >> code into a single reusable interface? In other words, I'm still >> seeking a bit more justification for this patch. > > IMHO it should be sufficient for this new code to simply call > the existing virEventAddTimeout() API, and run the event loop > in the background thread. Hmm... I do not notice this API... Thanks for pointing this. I rough scan this API, it uses gettimeofday() to calculate the timeout. The time returns from gettimeofday can be changed by user, and it will cause some problems... > > Daniel > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list