On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 09:31:31AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 3/13/20 11:38 PM, Liran Alon wrote: > > On 13/03/2020 21:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > On 3/12/20 5:54 PM, Liran Alon wrote: > > > > No functional change. This is mere refactoring. > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Liran Alon <liran.a...@oracle.com> > > > > --- > > > > hw/i386/pc.c | 1 + > > > > hw/i386/vmmouse.c | 1 + > > > > hw/i386/vmport.c | 1 + > > > > include/hw/i386/pc.h | 13 ------------- > > > > include/hw/i386/vmport.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > What about moving it to hw/i386/vmport.h (no under include/)? > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > Can you explain the logic that separates between hw/i386/*.h to > > include/hw/i386/*.h? > > Headers in the include/hw/ namespace can be consumed by all machine targets. > If this is a target-specific device, having it local to the target > (hw/i386/) protect generic code (and other targets) of using it. This helps > detecting wrong dependencies between components.
I think it's true. However when headers were moved to include we weren't always able to do this correctly. So some i386 specific headers are under include. > > If it makes sense, sure I will move it. I just don't know what is the > > convention here. > > Michael/Paolo/Eduardo what do you recommend?
