On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:53:52PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 9/3/20 12:42 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > This will make the type name constant consistent with the name of > > the type checking macro. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > --- > > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com> > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> > > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > > --- > > hw/i386/kvm/i8259.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/kvm/i8259.c b/hw/i386/kvm/i8259.c > > index 3f8bf69e9c..687c0cd536 100644 > > --- a/hw/i386/kvm/i8259.c > > +++ b/hw/i386/kvm/i8259.c > > @@ -19,10 +19,10 @@ > > #include "sysemu/kvm.h" > > #include "qom/object.h" > > > > -#define TYPE_KVM_I8259 "kvm-i8259" > > +#define TYPE_KVM_PIC "kvm-i8259" > > I disagree with this patch, as we have various KVM INTC and only one > KVM_I8259. > > TYPE_KVM_ARM_GIC and TYPE_KVM_S390_FLIC are kind of TYPE_KVM_INTC ... > > Can we rename it KVM_I8259_PIC?
I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not completely sure. Why is it OK to have a macro named KVM_PIC, a struct named KVMPICClass, a struct named PICCommonState, but not OK to have a constant named TYPE_KVM_PIC? What about the TYPE_PIC_COMMON constant? All these symbols are internal to the i8259 code and aren't expected to be unique globally. Are TYPE_* names more special and expected to be unique globally? If yes, why? -- Eduardo
