On 23/03/16 17:56, Peter Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:28:28PM +0300, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
On 23/03/16 08:32, Peter Xu wrote:
diff --git a/include/sysemu/kvm.h b/include/sysemu/kvm.h index 6695fa7..8738fa1 100644 --- a/include/sysemu/kvm.h +++ b/include/sysemu/kvm.h @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ void kvm_device_access(int fd, int group, uint64_t attr, */ int kvm_create_device(KVMState *s, uint64_t type, bool test);
+/** + * kvm_support_device - probe whether KVM support specific device + * + * @vmfd: The fd handler for VM + * @type: type of device + * + * @return: true if supported, otherwise false. + */ +bool kvm_support_device(int vmfd, uint64_t type); Why don't name the function like 'kvm_device_supported' to better express its predicative nature? Because I am trying to follow existing naming style, like: "kvm_create_device" (please see above).
Yes, but kvm_create_device() returns a file descriptor whereas this function is predicative. Personally, I like the convention described in chapter 16 of Linux kernel coding style [1]: If the name of a function is an action or an imperative command, the function should return an error-code integer. If the name is a predicate, the function should return a "succeeded" boolean. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/CodingStyle Kind regards, Sergey