Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 2/6] rpc: Initialize a worker pool for max_workers=0 as well

2018-07-21 Thread John Ferlan
On 07/20/2018 03:47 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:52 PM +0200, John Ferlan > wrote: >> On 07/03/2018 07:37 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote: >>> Semantically, there is no difference between an uninitialized worker >>> pool and an initialized worker pool with zero workers.

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 2/6] rpc: Initialize a worker pool for max_workers=0 as well

2018-07-20 Thread Marc Hartmayer
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:52 PM +0200, John Ferlan wrote: > On 07/03/2018 07:37 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote: >> Semantically, there is no difference between an uninitialized worker >> pool and an initialized worker pool with zero workers. Let's allow the >> worker pool to be initialized for

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 2/6] rpc: Initialize a worker pool for max_workers=0 as well

2018-07-19 Thread John Ferlan
On 07/03/2018 07:37 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote: > Semantically, there is no difference between an uninitialized worker > pool and an initialized worker pool with zero workers. Let's allow the > worker pool to be initialized for max_workers=0 as well then which > makes the API more symmetric and

[libvirt] [PATCH v2 2/6] rpc: Initialize a worker pool for max_workers=0 as well

2018-07-03 Thread Marc Hartmayer
Semantically, there is no difference between an uninitialized worker pool and an initialized worker pool with zero workers. Let's allow the worker pool to be initialized for max_workers=0 as well then which makes the API more symmetric and simplifies code. Validity of the worker pool is delegated