On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 08:24:16AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 6/5/19 8:03 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:35:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>> -#define set_state(h,next_state) ((h)->state) = (next_state) > >>> +#define set_next_state(h,_next_state) ((h)->next_state) = (_next_state) > >>> +#define get_next_state(h) ((h)->next_state) > >>> #define get_state(h) ((h)->state) > >> > >> So I wonder if it's better to rename get_state as get_last_state or > >> get_visible_state? > > > > Or even get_public_state? > > get_public_state sounds nice (the state that nbd_connection_state will > return). > > > > >> And/or rename get_next_state/set_next_state to > >> get_state/set_state? > > If we rename the public state (which implies that it is frozen while the > lock is held), using 'set_state' to adjust the next state is reasonable. > > >> > >> Ideas welcome to make the code clearer. > > Do we have to use h->next_state everywhere, or can we rely on a > stack-allocated variable passed through all the functions? Then again, > we're already passing h through to all internal functions, which means > h->next_state is already accessible without adding a parameter; but a > stack-allocated variable may be harder to pass without lots of churn.
Yes we could allocate such a variable in the generated wrapper (but only for functions which are !is_locked) and pass a pointer to it throughout the code. It's likely quite a bit of churn. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
