On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:31:15PM -0400, Dave Allan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:49:46PM -0400, Dave Allan wrote:
> On 04/07/2010 10:17 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >On 04/06/2010 06:59 AM, Dave Allan wrote:
> >>>Then again, fixing the type for your new method would imply fixing the
> >>>typing of virAlloc and friends as well.
> >
> >Daniel's arguments are convincing; it's okay to keep the ugly cast in
> >the implementation if it makes the header easier to use without having
> >to embed a cast in the #define.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >>Is everybody ok with having this allocator, btw?
> >
> >You have my ACK, but I'm only a (small) fraction of everybody. But
> >since no one is using them yet, is it worth waiting until after 0.8.0 to
> >push?
>
> Waiting is a good idea; the patch has been hanging around my
> development box for weeks, so there's no hurry.
>
> Dave
Can I get another ack for this patch now that 0.8.0 is out?
ACK
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://deltacloud.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|