On 5/15/23 15:09, Juan Quintela wrote:
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.
It is common practice for functions doing a simple test and returning a bool.
No big deal anyway.
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?
I am referring to :
/* Returns true if the rate limiting was broken by an urgent request */
bool migration_rate_limit(void)
{
...
return urgent;
}
which existed prior to the name changes and I thought migration_rate_limit()
would suffer the same fate. May be keep the '_limit' suffix for this one if
you remove it for the others ?
Thanks,
C.
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.
