[libvirt] [PATCH 4/8] conf: Allow NULL for virDomainDeviceInfoCallback

[Ján Tomko]

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:36:59PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 16:28 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 03:24:06PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 14:59 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> > > Of course, there is a huge overlap between iterating over all devices
>> > > and just those with an info, but since the callers do request *Info*
>> > > I don't think they should expect it to be NULL.
>> >
>> > I realize that. I even toyed with the idea of renaming
>> > virDomainDeviceInfoIterate() to virDomainDeviceIterate() to get rid
>> > of the inconsistency, but I didn't feel like it would be worth the
>> > churn and though that documenting the expectations would be enough.
>>
>> I think there would be less churn that way, see my proposal:
>> Message-Id: <cover.1558448715.git.jtomko at redhat.com>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-May/msg00607.html
>
>Well of course you're avoiding most of the churn I was mentioning:
>you're adding a new function instead of renaming the existing one!
>That's cheating ;)
>
>I don't much like the idea of adding a separate function that does
>almost the same thing but not quite, because that will ultimately
>result in the same situation we have now: someone will add a new
>callback and (reasonably) expect it to be called for all devices,
>but that won't happen because the original code uses the DeviceInfo
>variant instead of the Device one. That's unnecessary friction.
>

So is having to argue about not putting if (!info) into every single
internal function that should not have been called with a NULL info in
the first place.

Jano
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20190522/db113aea/attachment-0001.sig>