Hi On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I got a few more questions. > > Do we expect more events in need of separate throttling by some ID-like > member of their data object? > Do we expect *different* callbacks? Callbacks that throttle by some > member of their data object won't count as different. > > Do we really need the callback and the type punning? As long as all we > have is the current two throttles, I'd try to do without, as follows. >
That's not a question you can answer easily, but I can easily imagine that we may throttle events based on different conditions. So I prefer a modular code if it's easy to do and hopefully easy to understand. > monitor_qapi_event_throttle() takes the name of a data member as > additional argument. If null, throttle like monitor_qapi_event_delay(). > Else, throttle like monitor_qapi_event_id_delay(). Except do it in a > single function, with a single MonitorQAPIEventState. The natural > representation of "either a single MonitorQAPIEventPending or a hash > table of them" is a union. You need a dispatch in a single function then, and it's very much not modular code that way. I'd prefer we keep the modularity this patch brings: different functions and structure for different throttle implementations. -- Marc-André Lureau
