Il 09/08/2013 16:23, Alex Bligh ha scritto:
>
> On 9 Aug 2013, at 11:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>>
>>> +/* New format calling conventions for timers */
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * timer_free:
>>> + * @ts: the timer
>>> + *
>>> + * Free a timer (it must not be on the active list)
>>> + */
>>> +static inline void timer_free(QEMUTimer *ts)
>>> +{
>>> + qemu_free_timer(ts);
>>> +}
>>
>> If these functions have the same implementation, independent of ts's
>> timerlist, let's just keep the qemu_*_timer names.
>
> I should probably explain the plan / rationale.
>
> Either you or Stefan (sorry, can't remember which) mentioned that
> qemu_ as a prefix for functions (as opposed to QEMU as a prefix
> for typedef structs) implied the function operated on a 'global'
> basis. So in keeping with that I'm using qemu_timer_* for the
> global names (i.e. the ones running on mainloop) and timer_*
> for others (currently exactly one user in mainloop).
Yes. But in this case the mismatch would not hurt, right?
> I want to move away from qemu_*_timer anyway (whether it's
> to qemu_timer_* or timer_*) and indeed the automated patcher
> needs that to be the case, or we can't support both versions
> in the tree at once.
>
> If we don't want both, I would suggest using timer_* rather
> than qemu_timer_*. This will reduce some of the line wrap
> issues in the automated patch.
Sure.
Paolo
