Hi On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:10 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:07:27PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:50 PM Eduardo Habkost > > wrote: > > > > > Some chardev QOM cleanup patches had to be dropped from my queue > > > due to build erros introduced by code movements across ifdef > > > boundaries at char-parallel.c. This series redo the changes from > > > those patches, but the macro renames are now a little different: > > > > > > In this version I have decided to rename the type checking macros > > > from *_CHARDEV to CHARDEV_* instead of renaming tye > > > TYPE_CHARDEV_* constants to TYPE_*_CHARDEV, to make the > > > identifiers actually match the QOM type name strings > > > ("chardev-*"). > > > > > > > Sounds reasonable to me, but it loses the matching with the > > structure/object type name though. > > > > - MuxChardev *d = MUX_CHARDEV(s); > > + MuxChardev *d = CHARDEV_MUX(s); > > > > I have a preference for the first. Unless we rename all the chardev types > > too... > > I tend to think the structs should be renamed too - I've always considerd > them to be backwards. > > > Imho, the QOM type name is mostly an internal detail, the C type name is > > dominant in the code. > > Err it is the reverse. The QOM type name is exposed public API via QOM > commands, while the C struct names are a internal private detail. > > Yes, but without the chardev- prefix (unless you try object-add which I don't think will work with chardev) -- Marc-André Lureau