From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49259)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Zcbc9-0003PI-Sc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:00:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Zcbc8-0008QD-T4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:00:49 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40236)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Zcbc8-0008Pj-CS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:00:48 -0400
References: <1441619584-17992-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1441619584-17992-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA8BrSmwDB33-TeqEvVP6j7SFu5ENKqQy8tE1Z_9-5VMng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <55FAE3A9.5090907@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:00:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8BrSmwDB33-TeqEvVP6j7SFu5ENKqQy8tE1Z_9-5VMng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] checkpatch: adapt some tests to QEMU
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>, Andreas Faerber <afaerber@suse.de>



On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
> like
>   typedef struct MyDevice {
>       DeviceState parent;
>=20
>       int reg0, reg1, reg2;
>   } MyDevice;

It's interesting that qom/object.h documents this and start like:

typedef struct ObjectClass ObjectClass;
typedef struct Object Object;

typedef struct TypeInfo TypeInfo;

typedef struct InterfaceClass InterfaceClass;
typedef struct InterfaceInfo InterfaceInfo;

I have a patch to flag widely-disrespected rules that we still want to
encourage in patches.  Would you agree with filing these typedefs under
this category?

Paolo