From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47460)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VhHeL-0003CP-5L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:33:27 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VhHeF-0001Gy-58
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:33:21 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9095)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VhHeE-0001Gu-Tj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:33:15 -0500
Message-ID: <52860674.4040904@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:33:08 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1384456020-12251-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org>
	<5285FD71.60707@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA8wiXPzOOqx-denOeCZ06z1_-RYkU3m+s=m=oZQ_WU-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8wiXPzOOqx-denOeCZ06z1_-RYkU3m+s=m=oZQ_WU-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] target-arm: Provide mechanism for getting
 KVM constants even if not CONFIG_KVM
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>

Il 15/11/2013 12:26, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > It's okay.  There are indeed advantages to putting this together with
>> > the definitions, instead of splitting it between target-arm/cpu.h and
>> > target-arm/kvm.c.
> Cool. I just wanted to check I wasn't missing some
> clever approach to this that might have avoided the
> need to duplicate all the definitions.

If you call your constants KVM_FOO, the compiler should not warn for a
redefinition with the exact same content.  But I find that more gross
than clever...

Paolo