Hi
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:10 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:07:27PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:50 PM Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Some chardev QOM cleanup patches had to be dropped from my queue
> > > due to build erros introduced by code movements across ifdef
> > > boundaries at char-parallel.c. This series redo the changes from
> > > those patches, but the macro renames are now a little different:
> > >
> > > In this version I have decided to rename the type checking macros
> > > from *_CHARDEV to CHARDEV_* instead of renaming tye
> > > TYPE_CHARDEV_* constants to TYPE_*_CHARDEV, to make the
> > > identifiers actually match the QOM type name strings
> > > ("chardev-*").
> > >
> >
> > Sounds reasonable to me, but it loses the matching with the
> > structure/object type name though.
> >
> > - MuxChardev *d = MUX_CHARDEV(s);
> > + MuxChardev *d = CHARDEV_MUX(s);
> >
> > I have a preference for the first. Unless we rename all the chardev types
> > too...
>
> I tend to think the structs should be renamed too - I've always considerd
> them to be backwards.
>
> > Imho, the QOM type name is mostly an internal detail, the C type name is
> > dominant in the code.
>
> Err it is the reverse. The QOM type name is exposed public API via QOM
> commands, while the C struct names are a internal private detail.
>
>
Yes, but without the chardev- prefix (unless you try object-add which I
don't think will work with chardev)
--
Marc-André Lureau
