From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58474) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiZ1Z-0004iR-D4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:09:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiZ1V-0002FT-4q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:09:33 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:59370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiZ1U-0002FO-VM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:09:29 -0500 Received: by iagj37 with SMTP id j37so38563050iag.4 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:09:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F04CE13.3030005@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:09:23 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1325705558-24358-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Rename target_phys_addr_t to Phys List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 01/04/2012 01:50 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 January 2012 19:32, Avi Kivity wrote: >> The name 'Phys' conveys exactly the same information as 'target_phys_addr_t': >> >> - it has to be a physical address (no such thing as physical data) >> - it has to be a target address (qemu doesn't do host physical addresses) >> - the fact that it's a type is implied by the naming convention >> >> As it's 4 characters vs. 18, and C standard compliant to boot, Phys is a >> clear winner. Rename all instances of target_phys_addr_t to the new name. >> All hail Phys! >> >> 323 files changed, 1959 insertions(+), 1959 deletions(-) > > Seems like gratuitous churn to me... Agreed. I don't really like using CamelCase for scalar values either. target_phys_addr_t should exist IMHO in the device model code. I think it would be more useful to introduce a hw_addr, fix it at u64, make the device model and memory API use that, and then make it so we didn't do the silliness around libhw32/libhw64. I think the only reason we don't fix target_phys_addr_t at u64 is because of sensitivity around the TLB softmmu, right? A hw_addr for hw/*.c should be a reasonable compromise. Making the build faster (by killing libhw32/libhw64) would be a good justification for this type of change IMHO. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM >