On 17 September 2014 16:22, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > On 09/17/2014 04:54 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> I am fine with adding such hooks, but please let's use a better, active >> name. CPUClass is the struct name and cpu-exec is a file name; the hook >> should say what it's doing, not where the code (used to) live(s). Just >> exec_enter/exec_exit possibly? > > cpu_exec is also the function name from which they're invoked, not just the > file name. > > I can make the name change if you really prefer, but (perhaps obviously) I > kinda like the current naming.
The current name doesn't seem particularly bad to me, and in the absence of further discussion here I assume you don't object that strongly, Andreas? Since this patchset unavoidably touches a pile of the target-* code (and it will conflict with at least one patchset I want to fixup-and-queue for target-arm.next), I'd like to commit it direct to master so we don't end up having to respin it or fix up collisions. Or do you have a strong preference for taking it through the qom tree? thanks -- PMM
