Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Introduce #define QEMU_ASYNC_EVENTLOOP to simplify #ifdefs

[Anthony Liguori]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Liguori writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Introduce #define 
> QEMU_ASYNC_EVENTLOOP to simplify #ifdefs"):
>   
> > I don't understand why we need two defines in the first place.  I 
> > noticed in the Makefile that we have rules to build qemu-nbd- objects 
> > and qemu-img- objects, but I don't see why that should be necessary.
> >     
>
> Well, the original #define was called QEMU_IMG and the objects were
> called qemu-img-*.  Surely we didn't expect Laurent to reuse those ?
> The names clearly indicated not to.
>   

Right, I can't see a reason why we would need to compile a single object 
different for qemu-img and qemu-nbd.  I think there's something fowl there.

> Perhaps it would be better to reorganise this some more and have
> qemu-syncioutil-*.o but I think to avoid the best being the enemy of
> the good I would argue that my patch should be applied in the
> meantime.
>   

Half solutions often mask the underlying problem because people think 
it's fixed.  I only think it's appropriate to do this sort of thing if 
the amount of work to do it right is prohibitively high.  In this case, 
someone just has to do a quick audit of the Makefile and respective .c 
files or Laurent just needs to explain why he did it that way :-)

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Ian.
>
>
>