Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:38:08PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>
>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?Maybe tcf_block_refcnt_get() is better.
