From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE459D49C9B for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 11:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vlmED-0006H1-Bp; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:59:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vlmEA-0006GI-1i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:59:50 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vlmE8-0003kn-Ca for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:59:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1769770786; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LZM1ucTgT0GURbBfuxyhpnjEWNgwIL9W/G7RUWEvU4w=; b=UktUYz0Ja2lyJVLBqy3mlNkDJzUsPK1UtN+N2/NVTmBbcsB7tO1PqaG2X0U8ISplYnyEyQ LzpRjRpfgP4yzQcL2tBXD764JJmio65/XVnYcnXL0CEYW9ySwPB209GnoK/4C/m6jRqupz dJmBqDnZbBE+VUK2jJSlHzKLH3JDe64= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-582-_rLxg-z1MK6k0knWuDoyLQ-1; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:59:43 -0500 X-MC-Unique: _rLxg-z1MK6k0knWuDoyLQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: _rLxg-z1MK6k0knWuDoyLQ_1769770781 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36DB91956080; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.22]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E1EE19560A2; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E06A21E692D; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 11:59:37 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: Peter Maydell Cc: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Roman Kiryanov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Pierrick Bouvier , mjt@tls.msk.ru, whollins@google.com, jansene@google.com, jpcottin@google.com, Eric Blake , Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui/kbd-state.h: Make the header C++ compatible In-Reply-To: (Peter Maydell's message of "Fri, 30 Jan 2026 09:19:32 +0000") References: <20260129190444.225306-1-rkir@google.com> <10b26b57-bcd6-4853-9e2b-b8410b404806@linaro.org> <0954062c-c032-42be-ad0d-df2559360963@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 11:59:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87sebnfjs6.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Peter Maydell writes: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 at 21:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> (+Paolo / Eric) >> >> On 29/1/26 21:31, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > >> > What are we trying to achieve here, and why does it benefit >> > us as an upstream project ? >> > >> > cf previous email thread from 2024 >> > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/ZnqPpqfBxlk9tEdX@redhat.com/ >> > about "drip-feeding" of this kind of patch with no clear take >> > on what the end state is or how much churn it's going to induce. >> >> I clearly know QEMU is not a C++ project. Now I don't see why we should >> be reluctant to have headers being usable by a C++ compiler, as long as >> it doesn't make our project worst to maintain. > > Every bit of code that is written by some downstream in C++ is > some thing that will essentially then never be upstreamed without > a big rewrite. So making it easier for downstreams to use C++ > reduces our chances of seeing them contribute what they do back to us. > > It's also extra work for us (for instance in this thread you > proposed adding a CI job, which is more CI minutes cost to > the project, more work for maintainers when something that > builds fine locally falls over in the CI, and so on). > > Each individual fix might be trivial, but they add up. > So it matters whether this one is "this is the only thing > we tripped over since 2024" or "we just rebased to a new > QEMU version and are going to be submitting dozens of these > over the next few weeks". > >> See for example non-invasive commit 7246c4cc470 ("exec: don't use void* >> in pointer arithmetic in headers"): > >> or commit 17c7df806b3 ("exec: avoid using C++ keywords in function >> parameters"): > > For the record, I wasn't really enthusiastic about those changes > either, for essentially the same reasons. +1 [...]