From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56898) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drT6e-00081T-8T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:06:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drT6Y-0005aR-Bq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:06:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drT6Y-0005Za-6N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:06:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:06:32 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20170911180632.GQ7570@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170907201335.13956-1-david@redhat.com> <20170907201335.13956-9-david@redhat.com> <1603f6bf-f481-13c2-c7eb-ac155c5a14cc@redhat.com> <20170909220737.GL7570@localhost.localdomain> <20170911175224.GP7570@localhost.localdomain> <8cf0bf17-c1cb-ee13-768c-dcf1836687c2@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8cf0bf17-c1cb-ee13-768c-dcf1836687c2@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 08/21] s390x: move sclp_service_call() to sclp.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson , cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Alexander Graf , Matthew Rosato , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:56:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > >>>> > >>>> #endif > >>> > >>> Why not use typedefs.h? > >> > >> See Markus's reply. But, maybe it's even better to use S390CPU* and > >> include target/s390x/cpu-qom.h, which by design provides as little > >> definitions as needed. > > > > I don't see an argument against moving typedef CPUS390XState to > > typedefs.h in Markus' reply. I see one argument for it (reducing > > the need for non-cyclic includes). > > > > cpu-qom.h includes cpu.h, so I don't know why using S390CPU* > > would solve any problem. I don't disagree about changing the > > function to use S390CPU* eventually, but it would still require > > us make a choice between: a) including the header where the > > typedef name is declared (cpu.h or cpu-qom.h); or b) moving the > > typedef name declaration to typedefs.h. > > It includes qom/cpu.h, not cpu.h. That's why using cpu-qom.h for such > typedefs works (see v4). > Oops, I was looking at an older tree (before commit 347b1a5c). You're right, sorry for the noise. -- Eduardo