Re: [PATCH v3 07/16] hw/i386/vmport: Introduce vmport.h

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

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 <address@hidden>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Liran Alon <address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > >   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 <address@hidden>
> > > 
> > > 
> > 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?