On 04.05.2021 17:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > 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.
Hmm, maybe (perhaps with an underscore inserted between 4 and 12). Yet (sorry) a comment in the function says "since Xen 4.13", which includes changes that have happened later. Therefore it's not really clear to me whether the function really _only_ deals with the 4.12 / 4.13 boundary. Jan
