On 28 March 2012 14:46, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 28.03.2012 15:40, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 26 March 2012 18:28, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>> +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'?
>
> Max complained about that and no one argued against him, so I avoided it
> in the .c file where it's not strictly necessary. It's really only
> necessary in the headers. But I don't mind either way.
>
> For me, the convention is cpu_class => CPUClass, so it would be unwise
> here, thus one of class, clazz, klass.
I don't particularly care but I'd rather we were consistent.
Mostly the devices seem to go for short variable names, like:
sc = I2C_SLAVE_GET_CLASS(dev);
IDEDeviceClass *dc = IDE_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(dev);
cdc = HDA_CODEC_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(codec);
DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_GET_CLASS(dev);
VirtIOSerialPortClass *k = VIRTIO_SERIAL_PORT_GET_CLASS(port);
and more rarely 'klass':
ISADeviceClass *klass = ISA_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(dev);
and never 'class' or 'foo_class'. (all examples obtained via
'git grep _GET_CLASS'.)
That would suggest 'k' or 'acc' here.
>>> +static const TypeInfo arm_cpu_type_info = {
>>> + .name = TYPE_ARM_CPU,
>>> + .parent = TYPE_CPU,
>>> + .instance_size = sizeof(ARMCPU),
>>> + .abstract = false, /* TODO Reconsider once cp15 reworked. */
>>
>> As it happens I'm planning to create the per-implementation
>> subclasses first and do the cp15 rework second.
>
> Suggest a rephrase? :)
Dunno. /* TODO Replace with per-implementation subclasses later */ ?
-- PMM
