From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KchoQ-00067P-Pk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:33:55 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KchoO-00064F-HR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:33:53 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49502 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KchoO-00063w-8n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:33:52 -0400
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]:1345)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1KchoM-0004NC-Gx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:33:50 -0400
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so253887and.130
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48C5379B.4050600@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:32:59 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1 of 3] [UPDATE] vnc dynamic resolution
References: <48BFF02F.2000803@eu.citrix.com> <48C474FC.70608@codemonkey.ws>
	<48C5310E.5090506@eu.citrix.com> <48C535E2.9040703@codemonkey.ws>
	<48C5378D.1010502@eu.citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <48C5378D.1010502@eu.citrix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>   
>> Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>     
>>>
>> Perhaps the source of my confusion is the use of red_max and red_max1. 
>> Could you try some more descriptive names?  I understand what the code
>> is doing now but it's very easy to confuse the two masks.
>>
>>     
>
> I understand.
> I went with red_max1 because we were already using this "notation" with
> red_shift and red_shift1.
>   

Yeah, I assumed that's why.

> How do you suggest I should call them?
>   

server_red_max and client_red_max seem like the obvious candidates to 
me.  Changing the shift1's would also be a nice fix.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori