On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 01:09:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.04.2021 17:52, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > @@ -1086,3 +1075,42 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_calc_compatible(xc_interface *xch, > > > > return rc; > > } > > + > > +int xc_cpu_policy_make_compatible(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t > > policy, > > + bool hvm) > > I'm concerned of the naming, and in particular the two very different > meanings of "compatible" for xc_cpu_policy_calc_compatible() and this > new one. I'm afraid I don't have a good suggestion though, short of > making the name even longer and inserting "backwards".
Would xc_cpu_policy_make_compat_412 be acceptable? That's the more concise one I can think of. Thanks, Roger.
