From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34750)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peterx@redhat.com>) id 1aikDg-0002ud-F3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:57:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peterx@redhat.com>) id 1aikDf-0001Ti-HC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:57:12 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:56:52 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160323145652.GW28183@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <1458711153-15988-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
	<1458711153-15988-4-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
	<56F28BEC.2070008@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56F28BEC.2070008@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 3/4] kvm: add kvm_support_device()
 helper function
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
Cc: wei@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, drjones@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, abologna@redhat.com

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:28:28PM +0300, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 23/03/16 08:32, Peter Xu wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/sysemu/kvm.h b/include/sysemu/kvm.h
> > index 6695fa7..8738fa1 100644
> > --- a/include/sysemu/kvm.h
> > +++ b/include/sysemu/kvm.h
> > @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ void kvm_device_access(int fd, int group, uint64_t attr,
> >   */
> >  int kvm_create_device(KVMState *s, uint64_t type, bool test);
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * kvm_support_device - probe whether KVM support specific device
> > + *
> > + * @vmfd: The fd handler for VM
> > + * @type: type of device
> > + *
> > + * @return: true if supported, otherwise false.
> > + */
> > +bool kvm_support_device(int vmfd, uint64_t type);
> 
> Why don't name the function like 'kvm_device_supported' to better express its predicative nature?

Because I am trying to follow existing naming style, like:
"kvm_create_device" (please see above).

Thanks.

-- peterx