>>>> +static void arm_cpu_reset(CPUState *c)
>>>> +{
>>>> + ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(c);
>>>> + ARMCPUClass *class = ARM_CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
>>>> +
>>>> + class->parent_reset(c);
>>>
>>> I thought we were avoiding 'class' in favour of 'klass'?
>>
>> I have suggested it once and I can only say it again,
>> please, call it 'cpu_class'. It is the least surprising name.
>
> No, cpu_class is being used for a different class, CPUClass, when
> twiddling with reset handlers of the parent class, for instance.
>
> We could call it arm_cpu_class, but is that any better?
There's no other class in this context, so why more specific name than
would be enough?
It's only a matter of long enough suffix, isn't it?
--
Thanks.
-- Max
