From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51680)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <david@redhat.com>) id 1drSwe-00076G-Ah
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:56:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <david@redhat.com>) id 1drSwa-0004wg-EO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:56:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44640)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <david@redhat.com>) id 1drSwa-0004vn-88
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:56:24 -0400
References: <20170907201335.13956-1-david@redhat.com>
	<20170907201335.13956-9-david@redhat.com>
	<1603f6bf-f481-13c2-c7eb-ac155c5a14cc@redhat.com>
	<b8f78724-b6be-3e95-60fa-8c7dcafe2eec@redhat.com>
	<20170909220737.GL7570@localhost.localdomain>
	<c758ae70-a664-d13a-dd24-768f71e3f2e4@redhat.com>
	<20170911175224.GP7570@localhost.localdomain>
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <8cf0bf17-c1cb-ee13-768c-dcf1836687c2@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 19:56:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170911175224.GP7570@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 08/21] s390x: move sclp_service_call()
 to sclp.h
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: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>, cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>


>>>>
>>>>  #endif
>>>
>>> Why not use typedefs.h?
>>
>> See Markus's reply.  But, maybe it's even better to use S390CPU* and
>> include target/s390x/cpu-qom.h, which by design provides as little
>> definitions as needed.
> 
> I don't see an argument against moving typedef CPUS390XState to
> typedefs.h in Markus' reply.  I see one argument for it (reducing
> the need for non-cyclic includes).
> 
> cpu-qom.h includes cpu.h, so I don't know why using S390CPU*
> would solve any problem.  I don't disagree about changing the
> function to use S390CPU* eventually, but it would still require
> us make a choice between: a) including the header where the
> typedef name is declared (cpu.h or cpu-qom.h); or b) moving the
> typedef name declaration to typedefs.h.

It includes qom/cpu.h, not cpu.h. That's why using cpu-qom.h for such
typedefs works (see v4).

Thanks!

-- 

Thanks,

David