On 15 November 2013 11:33, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > Il 15/11/2013 12:26, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>> > It's okay. There are indeed advantages to putting this together with >>> > the definitions, instead of splitting it between target-arm/cpu.h and >>> > target-arm/kvm.c. >> Cool. I just wanted to check I wasn't missing some >> clever approach to this that might have avoided the >> need to duplicate all the definitions. > > If you call your constants KVM_FOO, the compiler should not warn for a > redefinition with the exact same content. But I find that more gross > than clever...
Yeah, using different names seemed like a better idea to me too. -- PMM
