From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41990 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ODaUX-00054U-5A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2010 05:50:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1ODaUV-0001tp-Uf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2010 05:50:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51287)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1ODaUV-0001tl-Mm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2010 05:50:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4BEFBFE9.7010005@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 12:50:33 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@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>
	<4BEFBCE8.1030704@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEFBCE8.1030704@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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@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 05/16/2010 12:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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?

Won't the context tell it apart?  When you expect a pci function, 
'class': 'video' means one thing, when you read a buffer it means another.

The only reason to use a special name is if it's a protocol level 
feature that can happen in all contexts.  But in that case we're better 
off with a schema, we don't want to push class descriptors everywhere.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function