On 11/25/19 2:37 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 04:03:47 -0500
> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Let's also move the clear reset function into the reset handler.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  target/s390x/cpu-qom.h |  1 +
>>  target/s390x/cpu.c     | 58 +++++++++++++-----------------------------
>>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>>
> 
>> @@ -453,6 +424,11 @@ static Property s390x_cpu_properties[] = {
>>      DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST()
>>  };
>>  
>> +static void s390_cpu_reset_clear(CPUState *s)
>> +{
>> +    return s390_cpu_reset(s, S390_CPU_RESET_CLEAR);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void s390_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>  {
>>      S390CPUClass *scc = S390_CPU_CLASS(oc);
>> @@ -469,7 +445,7 @@ static void s390_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>      scc->load_normal = s390_cpu_load_normal;
>>  #endif
>>      scc->reset = s390_cpu_reset;
>> -    cc->reset = s390_cpu_full_reset;
>> +    cc->reset = s390_cpu_reset_clear;
>>      cc->class_by_name = s390_cpu_class_by_name,
>>      cc->has_work = s390_cpu_has_work;
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_TCG
> 
> One thing I liked about the previous naming is that it is more obvious
> that the clear reset is actually the full reset of a cpu. Not sure if
> keeping that is better than matching the function name to the name of
> the reset being performed. Opinions?
> 

Are you only worrying for this particular wrapper or in general?
I'd be happy to rename the wrapper to s390_cpu_reset_full()