On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:32:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/17/2016 09:27 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > +##
> > +# @GICCapability:
> > +#
> > +# This struct describes capability for a specific GIC version. These
>
> Might be nice to spell out what the acronym GIC means, but that's cosmetic.
Ah! I thought I have added that... It's missing again. Will do in
next spin.
>
> > +# bits are not only decided by QEMU/KVM software version, but also
> > +# decided by the hardware that the program is running upon.
> > +#
> > +# @version: version of GIC to be described.
> > +#
> > +# @emulated: whether current QEMU/hardware supports emulated GIC
> > +# device in user space.
> > +#
> > +# @kernel: whether current QEMU/hardware supports hardware
> > +# accelerated GIC device in kernel.
> > +#
> > +# Since: 2.6
> > +##
> > +{ 'struct': 'GICCapability',
> > + 'data': { 'version': 'int',
> > + 'emulated': 'bool',
> > + 'kernel': 'bool' } }
> >
>
> I might have squashed this with the patch that first uses GICCapability,
> as defining a type in isolation doesn't do much.
I can do the squash in next spin if you prefer that one. Actually I
got this question before, about when I should split and when to
squash. E.g., shall I make sure that I should have no "definition
only" patches in the future?
-- peterx
