From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35154)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Zcc7I-0003Q2-73
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:33:00 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Zcc7E-0004Ji-6w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:33:00 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45447)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Zcc7E-0004Je-1b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:32:56 -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>
	<55FAE3A9.5090907@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9xacMPaewoF7K_64G4UhWzM7Lcbas4fu3SgO1CnT1EYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <55FAEB33.50809@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:32:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9xacMPaewoF7K_64G4UhWzM7Lcbas4fu3SgO1CnT1EYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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;
>>>
>>>       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?
> 
> No, I think that having a separate typedef is worse. The
> only exceptions are (a) when you need it to be separate because
> you need to use the type within the struct itself (or some
> similar dependency loop) (b) when you want to put the typedef
> in include/qemu/typedefs.h.
> 
> I really don't see any need to suddenly outlaw something
> that's been accepted as standard good QEMU style for a
> long time.

I think it varies depending on the maintainer.  PPC, USB, SCSI, ACPI all
use a separate typedef.  I'll prepare a revert.

Paolo