>>> >>> There is no such clash in VirtioPMemDeviceInfo. You could name the >>> member "addr" there. But that would trade the inconsistency with >>> PCDIMMDeviceInfo for an inconsistency with the device property. >>> >>> Is this correct? >>> >> >> Yes, I chose to name it like the property. (that felt to be the right >> thing). As far as I see this is perfectly fine. > > Now work that into the commit message or perhaps a comment, please :)
Yes, once this get's picked up in the !RFC version of virtio-pmem, we should highlight that (and best, split VirtioPMemDeviceInfo introduction off from the remaining part). > >> It's unfortunate but we >> can't do anything about it. > > Well, if we really, really wanted to, we could: rename pc-dimm's > property, keep the old name as a deprecated alias. Would that be better > than the inconsistency, and the code you need to work around it? You > decide. > I had the same in mind initially but considered it not useful right now. There is not that much code to work around that (it's basically just two functions get_addr() and set_addr() on the memory device interface), and this way we can at least keep property setting/getting code out of memory-device code (I don't consider properties useful when it comes to internal interfaces). If we ever see a problem with that, we can introduce the alias (+ optionally deprecate) later. Thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
