On 06/01/2011 12:27 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
> 2011/6/1 Adam Litke <agl@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> * src/remote/remote_protocol.x: provide defines for the new entry points
>> * src/remote/remote_driver.c daemon/remote.c: implement the client and
>> server side
>> * daemon/remote_generator.pl: Specify the manually-written functions
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <agl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> +static int remoteDomainBlockPull(virDomainPtr domain,
> + const char *path,
> + virDomainBlockPullInfoPtr info,
> + unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + int rv = -1;
> + remote_domain_block_pull_args args;
> + remote_domain_block_pull_ret ret;
> + struct private_data *priv = domain->conn->privateData;
> +
> + remoteDriverLock(priv);
> +
> + make_nonnull_domain(&args.dom, domain);
> + args.path = (char *)path;
> + args.flags = flags;
> +
> + if (call(domain->conn, priv, 0, REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_BLOCK_PULL,
> + (xdrproc_t)xdr_remote_domain_block_pull_args, (char *)&args,
> + (xdrproc_t)xdr_remote_domain_block_pull_ret, (char *)&ret) == -1)
> + goto done;
> +
> + if (info) {
> + info->cur = ret.info.cur;
> + info->end = ret.info.end;
> + }
> + rv = 0;
> +
> +done:
> + remoteDriverUnlock(priv);
> + return rv;
> +}
>
> From the generator point-of-view I would want to avoid having the info
> parameter being NULLable, as this differs from the common pattern and
> results in special case code in the generator.
>From an API user's point of view, I think it's nice to allow NULL for
the info struct. The user may not care about the current progress
information. I could fix this at the global libvirt level by allocating
a dummy struct to pass down to the driver implementations if the user
passed NULL. Would that be acceptable?
>> +struct remote_domain_block_pull_info {
>> + unsigned hyper cur;
>> + unsigned hyper end;
>> +};
>
>> +struct remote_domain_block_pull_ret {
>> + remote_domain_block_pull_info info;
>> +};
>
>> +struct remote_domain_get_block_pull_info_ret {
>> + remote_domain_block_pull_info info;
>> +};
>
> From the generator point-of-view I would avoid this approach of
> putting a struct in a struct because that differs from the common
> approach and results in special case code in the generator. It should
> look like this
>
> struct remote_domain_block_pull_ret {
> unsigned hyper cur;
> unsigned hyper end;
> };
>
> struct remote_domain_get_block_pull_info_ret {
> unsigned hyper cur;
> unsigned hyper end;
> };
Ok, I will make this change.
--
Adam Litke
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list