On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 14:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 17/03/17 18:19, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > --- a/xen/common/schedule.c > > +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c > > @@ -77,8 +77,25 @@ static struct scheduler __read_mostly ops; > > (( (opsptr)->fn != NULL ) ? (opsptr)->fn(opsptr, > > ##__VA_ARGS__ ) \ > > : (typeof((opsptr)->fn(opsptr, ##__VA_ARGS__)))0 ) > > > > -#define DOM2OP(_d) (((_d)->cpupool == NULL) ? &ops : ((_d)- > > >cpupool->sched)) > > -static inline struct scheduler *VCPU2OP(const struct vcpu *v) > > +static inline struct scheduler *dom_get_scheduler(const struct > > domain *d) > > Hmm -- I agree that VCPU2OP is probably not the right name, but I'm > not > a fan of the new name either; and I don't have an option I like > better yet. > Maybe:
domain_scheduler()
vcpu_scheduler()
or
dom_scheduler()
vcpu_scheduler()
I.e., basically getting rid of the 'get' part, which may misleadingly
hint at some kind of reference counting.
Or, also trading 'scheduler' for 'ops':
dom_ops()
vcpu_ops()
This is all I can come up with, my preference being
{dom,vcpu}_scheduler().
Dario
--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
