On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:10:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.06.2025 21:49, dm...@proton.me wrote:
> > From: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com>
> >
> > Group all pbuf-related data structures under domain's console field.
>
> Fine with me in principle, as I was indeed wondering about the lack of
> grouping when the sub-struct was introduced, but ...
>
> > @@ -654,6 +648,12 @@ struct domain
> >
> > /* Console settings. */
> > struct {
> > + /* hvm_print_line() and guest_console_write() logging. */
> > +#define DOMAIN_PBUF_SIZE 200
> > + char *pbuf;
> > + unsigned int pbuf_idx;
> > + spinlock_t pbuf_lock;
> > +
> > /* Permission to take ownership of the physical console input. */
> > bool input_allowed;
> > } console;
>
> ... since all uses of the fields need touching anyway, can we perhaps
> think of giving the fields better names? I never understood what the
> 'p' in "pbuf" actually stands for, for example. My suggestion would
> be to replace "pbuf" by "glog" (for "guest logging"), but surely there
> are alternatives.
Sounds good to me.
I can do renaming in v2.
>
> Jan
>
