At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:56:41 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in
> At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:15:27 +0530, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote
> in
> > > After the renaming of the function, the following structure looks
> > > simpler and more natural.
> > >
> > > while (ConfirmRecoveryPaused())
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > <wait>
> > > }
> >
> > So do you mean that if the pause is requested ConfirmRecoveryPaused
> > will set it to paused and if it is not paused then it will return
> > false? With the current function name, I don't think that will look
> > clean maybe we should change the name to something like
> > CheckAndConfirmRecoveryPaused? Or I am fine with the way it is now.
> > Any other thoughts?
>
> I should have took the meaning of "confirm" wrongly. I took that as
> "somehow determine if the recovery is to be paused". If that reading
> is completely wrong, I don't mind either re-chaging the function name
> or leaving all it alone.
Ouch. If we choose to re-rename it, it won't be "CheckAnd...".
RecoveryIsPaused() is used for another meaning. Maybe
RecoveryPauseTriggerd() or such? (I'm not sure, sorry..)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
