>>> On 12.11.14 at 11:46, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 12/11/14 10:40, Juergen Gross wrote: >> --- a/xen/common/cpupool.c >> +++ b/xen/common/cpupool.c >> @@ -225,6 +225,35 @@ static int cpupool_destroy(struct cpupool *c) >> } >> >> /* >> + * Move domain to another cpupool >> + */ >> +static int cpupool_move_domain_unlocked(struct domain *d, struct cpupool *c) > > This isn't an unlocked function. It is strictly called with the > cpupool_lock held. Per prevailing style, it should be named > "__cpupool_move_domain()".
I generally disagree to this, even if this is the prevailing style. Double-underscore prefixed names shouldn't be used at all in our code, as they're being reserved by the C library standard (and the compiler is free to introduce library calls named such). But the question of course is valid why the function name says "unlocked" when it's always being called with the lock held - "locked" would seem more natural in this case. But in the end Jürgen is the maintainer of that code, so he decides. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
