From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35353 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ODaI9-0008FL-L2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2010 05:37:50 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1ODaI8-0000dq-7V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2010 05:37:49 -0400
Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com ([209.85.161.45]:37397)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1ODaI7-0000dh-V9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2010 05:37:48 -0400
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so2711189fxm.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 16 May 2010 02:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BEFBCE8.1030704@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:44 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1273843151.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>	<6e14cbfe3764b46d9bd6d2db61d41fd9c85dd54e.1273843151.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>	<4BED9358.1000106@codemonkey.ws>
	<4BEE5F0F.2060600@web.de>	<4BEE6035.2070906@redhat.com>
	<4BEE6254.6060701@web.de> <4BEEDA7E.7060805@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEEDA7E.7060805@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/8] Add QBuffer
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>

On 05/15/2010 07:31 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/15/2010 11:59 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Is this __class__ stuff documented anywhere?
>>>
>> Not yet. Also, we should clarify the proposed private extension section
>> that only "__some_key" is reserved for downstream, not
>> '__some_other_key__' (i.e. downstream names must not end with '__').
>>
>
> Why use such weird names at all? What's wrong with 'class'?

That it conflicts with e.g. PCI classes?

Paolo