On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 14:48, Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13 2025, Eric Auger <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> + #define MAX_CPREG_VMSTATE_ANOMALIES 10 > >>> + uint64_t cpreg_vmstate_missing_indexes[MAX_CPREG_VMSTATE_ANOMALIES]; > >>> + int32_t cpreg_vmstate_missing_indexes_array_len; > >>> + uint64_t > >>> cpreg_vmstate_unexpected_indexes[MAX_CPREG_VMSTATE_ANOMALIES]; > >>> + int32_t cpreg_vmstate_unexpected_indexes_array_len; > >> "indices"? > > > > Originally we had > > uint64_t *cpreg_vmstate_indexes; > > so I reused the same terminology > > > > As a non native english speaker I don't know if the usage is wrong. I > > thought some references on the net though > > Not a native English speaker, either; wiktionary says both are valid, so > probably a matter of taste.
Mmm. I tend to go with "indexes" as being clearer (especially for non-native speakers) than "indices". Within QEMU sources there are twice as many "indexes" as "indices". thanks -- PMM
