From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49268) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHvqn-0002Xr-Jw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHvqh-0003I9-IT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:41 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WHvqh-0003HI-Bb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:44:33 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20140224134433.GI3775@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> References: <1393174935-11750-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <1393174935-11750-10-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <20140224101730.GF3775@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 9/9] w32: Replace Windows specific data types in common header files List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Weil , Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori Am 24.02.2014 um 14:24 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: > On 24 February 2014 10:17, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Not sure if I understand the problem. Why is it bad to depend on > > windows.h? > > It drags in an enormous pile of stuff that grabs a lot of > namespace that it would be nice to not have to avoid by > fiddling with QEMU code. (For instance the Spitz board > clashes with a MOD_SHIFT #define.) Right, I can understand that you want to avoid device models or other random source files to have a polluted namespace. The file that I'm CCed for, however, is block/raw-aio.h, which is only included in the raw-posix block driver (there it's #ifdef'ed away) and in the raw-win32 one (which has an obvious dependency on Windows headers). Can't see how dropping the type safety improves anything there. I might see the improvement of not polluting the namespace in other places, but am still not convinced that using void* instead of specific types is a good idea. Kevin