[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] checkpatch: adapt some tests to QEMU

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] checkpatch: adapt some tests to QEMU
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:32:51 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

On 17/09/2015 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
>>> like
>>>   typedef struct MyDevice {
>>>       DeviceState parent;
>>>       int reg0, reg1, reg2;
>>>   } MyDevice;
>> It's interesting that qom/object.h documents this and start like:
>> typedef struct ObjectClass ObjectClass;
>> typedef struct Object Object;
>> typedef struct TypeInfo TypeInfo;
>> typedef struct InterfaceClass InterfaceClass;
>> typedef struct InterfaceInfo InterfaceInfo;
>> I have a patch to flag widely-disrespected rules that we still want to
>> encourage in patches.  Would you agree with filing these typedefs under
>> this category?
> No, I think that having a separate typedef is worse. The
> only exceptions are (a) when you need it to be separate because
> you need to use the type within the struct itself (or some
> similar dependency loop) (b) when you want to put the typedef
> in include/qemu/typedefs.h.
> I really don't see any need to suddenly outlaw something
> that's been accepted as standard good QEMU style for a
> long time.

I think it varies depending on the maintainer.  PPC, USB, SCSI, ACPI all
use a separate typedef.  I'll prepare a revert.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]