On 2012-07-25 17:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 July 2012 16:47, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2012-07-25 15:24, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> --- a/kvm-all.c >>> +++ b/kvm-all.c >>> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ struct KVMState >>> KVMState *kvm_state; >>> bool kvm_kernel_irqchip; >>> bool kvm_async_interrupt_injection; >>> +bool kvm_irqfds_allowed; >> >> Why allowed vs enabled? You only have kvm_async_interrupt_injection as well. > > I was trying to follow the existing pattern where the macro kvm_enabled() > tests the variable kvm_allowed (though as you noticed I got it wrong for > kvm_async_interrupt_injection: will fix that in v2.) > > Having the two the same is valid C, it's just a style question whether > having a variable foo and a macro foo() is considered confusing I guess.
I don't mind which way if they are consistent. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
