On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 09:57:05AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:30:17PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >> diff --git a/include/migration/vmstate.h b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> > > >> index 1a22887..ebd755c 100644
> > > >> --- a/include/migration/vmstate.h
> > > >> +++ b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> > > >> @@ -188,6 +188,8 @@ enum VMStateFlags {
> > > >>
> > > >> typedef enum {
> > > >> MIG_PRI_DEFAULT = 0,
> > > >> + MIG_PRI_GICV3_ITS,
> > > >> + MIG_PRI_GICV3,
> > > >> MIG_PRI_MAX,
> > > >
> > > > Can we keep this commented so it's trivially easy to see the order,
> > > > something like:
> > > >
> > > > typedef enum {
> > > > MIG_PRI_DEFAULT = 0,
> > > > + MIG_PRI_GICV3_ITS, /* Needs to be before PCI devices */
> > > > + MIG_PRI_GICV3, /* Must be before ITS */
> > > Sure
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Besides above: is it possible that in the future other platforms
> > (rather than ARM) can leverage these new introduced priority? If so,
> > would it be nicer that we use general names (like, e.g., INTCxxx? or
> > better?) rather than platform-specific names (like, GICxxx)?
>
> Yes, but the ordering rules on other platforms might be subtly different.
I see. Then I have no problem in either way - we can rearrange the
defines until one day it is really needed. Thanks,
-- peterx
