On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 16:37 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > v2: > - Just a rebase > - I did *not* use virPCIDeviceAddress wording instead as discussed in > the v1 thread. That's because we have lot of functions working > with virDevicePCIAddress named exactly after that and renaming > those would be ugly IMHO. Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly the other way around: if it's defined in virpci.h, it should be called virPCI*. virDevicePCIAddress is used a lot but AFAICT the number of functions whose name is derived from it is just six. Moreover, we don't have other virDevice*Address types (or even just virDevice*) to set a precedent, but we have a bunch of virPCI* stuff including virPCIDevice, which happens to have a virPCIDeviceAddress among its members. Bikeshedding, I know, but there you have it :) I'll look at the actual code changes tomorrow. Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list