On 12.09.2017 15:35, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/12/2017 05:45 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 11.09.2017 19:20, Eric Blake wrote: >>> Maintaining two layers of libqtest APIs, one that takes an explicit >>> QTestState object, and the other that uses the implicit global_qtest, >>> is annoying. In the interest of getting rid of global implicit >>> state and having less code to maintain, merge: >>> qtest_clock_set() >>> qtest_clock_step() >>> qtest_clock_step_next() >>> with their short counterparts. All callers that previously >>> used the short form now make it explicit that they are relying on >>> global_qtest, and later patches can then clean things up to remove >>> the global variable. >>> > >>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ int64_t qtest_clock_step(QTestState *s, int64_t step); >>> * >>> * Returns: The current value of the QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL in nanoseconds. >>> */ >>> -int64_t qtest_clock_set(QTestState *s, int64_t val); >>> +int64_t clock_set(QTestState *s, int64_t val); >> Could we please keep the "qtest" prefix here and rather get rid of the >> other ones? Even if it's more to type, I prefer to have a proper prefix >> here so that it is clear at the first sight that the functions belong to >> the qtest framework. > > I suppose we can, although it makes more lines that are likely to bump > up against 80 columns, and thus slightly more churn to reformat things > to keep checkpatch happy. I like the shorter name, because less typing > is easier to remember. I'd prefer a second opinion on naming before > doing anything about it though - Markus or Paolo, do you have any > preference?
IMHO you should at least keep the qtest prefix in patch 33/38 to avoid confusion with the system definitions that have the same names (see "man 2 outb" for example). Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature