On Thu 13 Sep 2018 at 17:21, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:24 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 20:09, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:59 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Functions tcf_block_get{_ext}() and tcf_block_put{_ext}() actually
>> >> attach/detach block to specific Qdisc besides just taking/putting
>> >> reference. Rename them according to their purpose.
>> >
>> > Where exactly does it attach to?
>> >
>> > Each qdisc provides a pointer to a pointer of a block, like
>> > &cl->block. It is where the result is saved to. It takes a parameter
>> > of Qdisc* merely for read-only purpose.
>>
>> tcf_block_attach_ext() passes qdisc parameter to tcf_block_owner_add()
>> which saves qdisc to new tcf_block_owner_item and adds the item to
>> block's owner list. I proposed several naming options for these
>> functions to Jiri on internal review and he suggested "attach" as better
>> option.
>
> But that is merely item->q = q, this is why I said it is read-only,
> hard to claim this is attaching.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > So, renaming it to *attach() is even confusing, at least not
>> > any better. Please find other names or leave them as they are.
>>
>> What would you recommend?
>
> I don't know, perhaps "acquire"?
>
> Or, leaving tcf_block_get() as it is but rename your refcnt
> increment function to be something like tcf_block_refcnt_get()?Cong, I'm okay with both options. Jiri, which naming would you prefer?
