On 7/9/2016 9:10 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
Arch-specific vm-event functions in x86/vm_event.h -e.g. vm_event_init_domain()-
don't have an 'arch_' prefix. Apply the same rule for monitor functions -
originally the only two monitor functions that had an 'arch_' prefix were
arch_monitor_domctl_event() and arch_monitor_domctl_op(), but I gave them that
prefix because -they had a counterpart function in common code-, that being
monitor_domctl().
This should actually be the other way around - ie adding the arch_
prefix to vm_event functions that lack it.
Given that the majority of the arch-specific functions called from
common-code don't have an 'arch_' prefix unless they have a common
counterpart, I was guessing that was the rule. It made sense in my head
since I saw in that the intention of avoiding naming conflicts (i.e you
can't have monitor_domctl() both on the common-side and on the
arch-side, so prepend 'arch_' to the latter). I noticed you guys also
'skip' the prefix when sending patches, so that reinforced my assumption.
Having the arch_ prefix is
helpful to know that the function is dealing with the arch specific
structs and not common.
Personally I don't see much use in 'knowing that the function is dealing
with the arch structs' from the call-site and you can tell that from the
implementation-site just by looking at the path of its source file.
Also, the code is pretty much localized in the arch directory anyway so
usually one wouldn't have to go back and forth between common and arch
that often. What really bothers me though is always having to read
'arch_' when spelling a function-name and also that it makes the
function name longer without much benefit. Your suggestion of adding it
to pretty much all functions that make up the interface to common just
adds to that headache. :-D
Similarly that's why we have the hvm_ prefix
for functions in hvm/monitor.
'hvm_' doesn't seem to me more special than 'monitor_', for instance,
but maybe that's just me.
Let this also be the rule for future 'arch_' functions additions, and with this
patch remove the 'arch_' prefix from the monitor functions that don't have a
counterpart in common-code (all but those 2 aforementioned).
Even if there are no common counter-parts to the function, the arch_
prefix should remain, so I won't be able to ack this patch.
Tamas
Having said the above, are you still of the same opinion?
Zuzu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
