On 04.07.2025 09:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.07.2025 18:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 03:41:18PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/softirq.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/softirq.h
>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,22 @@ enum {
>>>>
>>>> #define NR_SOFTIRQS (NR_COMMON_SOFTIRQS + NR_ARCH_SOFTIRQS)
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Ensure softirq @nr is pending on @cpu. Return true if an IPI can be
>>>> + * skipped, false if the IPI cannot be skipped.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#ifndef arch_pend_softirq
>>>> +static always_inline bool arch_pend_softirq(unsigned int nr, unsigned int
>>>> cpu)
>>>
>>> Nit: I would maybe it arch_set_softirq(), I find `pend` not that clear
>>> (I would rather fully spell `pending` instead).
>>
>> I, too, did wonder about the naming here. But using "pending" as you suggest
>> has the effect of giving the function a name we would normally associate with
>> a predicate ("Is it pending?"), whereas here the function is used to _mark_ a
>> softirq as pending. Hence in the end I didn't comment at all; I'd be fine
>> with "set", but I'm also okay with "pend".
>
> It's a set and check kind of function, so I don't care much. Just
> found the pend a bit too short, I don't think we usually abbreviate
> pending to pend.
Aiui it's not an abbreviation, but kind of a verb (inverse-)derived from
pending.
I don't know whether that's "official"; my dictionary doesn't have it.
Jan
