On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 06:40 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > 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. ACK series with the stuff pointed out in 4/4 taken care of on the condition that you *do not* rename stuff from virPCIDeviceAddress to virDevicePCIAddress. If you're not okay with that condition we can discuss the matter further next week :) Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list