On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 06:24:26PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
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 :)
No problem, I'm not against discussing this. Feel free to try it out if you want. I actually should've posted something like 2a/4 and 2b/4, i.e. two versions of patches so that it's visible what's nice and what's not :) If we don't reach a conclusion, I might do that later.
I'll look at the actual code changes tomorrow. Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list