>>> On 24.03.17 at 12:19, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: 24 March 2017 11:16 >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson >> <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Owen Smith <owen.sm...@citrix.com>; Wei Liu >> <wei.l...@citrix.com>; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] tools/firmware: add ACPI device for Windows >> laptop/slate mode switch >> >> >>> On 24.03.17 at 12:04, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> >> Sent: 24 March 2017 10:53 >> >> The only other concern I have here is that the abbreviation "conv" >> >> used throughout the patch is sort of ambiguous. I think it means >> >> "convertible" here, but without knowing the context it could easily >> >> be "conventional" or "convenience". Would there be anything >> >> wrong with spelling it out wherever name length limitations don't >> >> require it to be just four characters? >> >> >> > >> > I thought that name would be ok since it is the name of the ACPI device >> > itself but I could extend the xl.cfg option, bool and flag names to >> > 'acpi_convert' to make it more obvious. >> >> Hmm, "convert" still leaves room for speculation (in particular, seeing >> an option with this name, I'd suspect it wants to convert ACPI to >> something else). Is that what "conv" stands for (and not "convertible" >> or anything else)? >> > > It was chosen simply because of the name of the device. How about > 'acpi_device_conv'? After all this option merely controls the inclusion of > the device. Subsequent patches will have to add a PV protocol to instruct > in-guest code to prod it.
That name is not much better. Looking at MS doc, why don't we call it by the name that they use there: acpi_laptop_slate? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
