Am 17.03.2011 13:46, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 03/17/2011 07:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> >>>> Another detail is that, event extension is more important than command >>>> extension, because it's probably going to happen. I think it would be very >>>> bad to add new events just because we wanted to add a new field. >>> The way this is typically handled is that signals tend to pass >>> structures instead of lots of fields. For instance, most of the GDK >>> events just pass a structure for the event (like GdkButtonEvent). >> Can we do that with existing events or would we break the external >> interface because we'd have to nest everything one level deeper? > > We have to introduce new versions of existing events anyway so we can > make sure to nest the structures appropriately. I think BLOCK_IO_ERROR > is the only one that isn't doing this today FWIW.
But then we must always send both events in order to maintain compatibility, right? That sucks. If I understand right, the problem with the current events isn't even on the protocol level, which would be visible externally, but just that it doesn't map to the C interface in the way you like. Is there a reason to change the events from a wire protocol perspective? Kevin
