From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54252) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dPQJ6-0000kH-6o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 05:27:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dPQJ4-0000Y8-Uo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 05:27:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:27:37 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170626092735.GA2136@work-vm> References: <20170622184255.2d44e3bd@bahia.lab.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com> <87injo6jla.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170622172555.GE2100@work-vm> <20170622194649.6d251753@bahia.lab.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com> <20170622175012.GF2100@work-vm> <20170622183457.GG2100@work-vm> <20170622212332.38f4b434@bahia.lab.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170622212332.38f4b434@bahia.lab.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Separate function types from opaque types in include/qemu/typedefs.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Greg Kurz Cc: Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth , QEMU Trivial , QEMU Developers , Juan Quintela * Greg Kurz (groug@kaod.org) wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 19:34:58 +0100 > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote: > > > * Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote: > > > On 22 June 2017 at 19:08, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > On 22.06.2017 19:50, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > >> Could do; I'm just not finding tiny header files with one or > > > >> two entries each that useful. > > > > > > Well, it means that the bulk of code that doesn't care about the > > > types doesn't get its compilation fractionally slowed by having > > > to parse the typedef anyway. In general I think we're drifting > > > towards "have each .c file get fewer things automatically" rather > > > than otherwise (eg more finely focused files rather than stuffing > > > everything into qemu-common.h). > > > > At the cost of things getting fractionally slower by including lots > > more tiny headers. > > > > I generally agree in the case where there's a useful chunk, > > but when it's down to one or two definitions I don't see the point. > > > > > > Do we really need these function typedefs at all? IMHO it's quite ugly > > > > to hide such things in a typedef unless it is really necessary (and in > > > > this case, it does not seem to be really necessary since it is only used > > > > in a few places). So what about simply removing the typedefs in this case? > > > > > > I find function typedefs much more readable than having the > > > function-types inline in function arguments and the like. > > > > > > This is all fairly rapidly heading into bikeshed territory > > > though -- in the final analysis I don't think it matters > > > much what we do. > > > > Agreed. > > > > Last question for my own comprehension. > > I can't think of a case where we would do something like: > > some_vmsd->load_state_old = some_se->ops->load_state; > > Does it make sense for VMStateDescription::load_state_old and SaveVMHandlers::load_state > to be of the same type ? (I think this is what we discussed on irc) There's only a few _old's and they're the same interface as the non-_old's, the only difference is the range of version_id's they're prepared to take. Dave > > Dave > > > > > thanks > > > -- PMM > > -- > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK