Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote: > On 5/8/23 15:08, Juan Quintela wrote: >> This way we can make them atomic and use this functions from any >> place. I also moved all functions that use rate_limit to >> migration-stats. >> Functions got renamed, they are not qemu_file anymore. >> qemu_file_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_exceeded >> qemu_file_set_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_set >> qemu_file_get_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_get >> qemu_file_reset_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_reset >> qemu_file_acct_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_account. >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> >> --- >> If you have any good suggestion for better names, I am all ears. > > May be : > > qemu_file_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_is_exceeded
I try not to put _is_ in function names. If it needs to be there, I think that I need to rename the functino. migration_rate_limit_exceeded() seems clear to me. > qemu_file_acct_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_inc My problem for this one is that we are not increasing the rate_limit, we are "decreasing" the amount of data we have for this period. That is why I thought about _account(), but who knows. > Also, migration_rate_limit() would need some prefix to understand what is > its purpose. What do you mean here? This is the only rate_limit that I can think in migration. > Do we really need "_limit" in the names ? You have a point here. If nobody complains/suggest anything else, I will drop the _limit for the next submission. Thanks very much.
