Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen/ia64 presentation

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27 Apr 2005, at 20:12, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

> > Yeah, there are some artifacts and some cleanup would be good.
> > The typedef predates exec_domain (used to be a typedef of
> > struct domain) and I used it because I knew that exec_domain
> > was coming.  Personally, I prefer VCPU (virtual CPU) to exec_domain.
> I've had the same thought actually... an "exec_domain" is really a
> virtual CPU state, and having a separate vcpu_info_t is rather 
> confusing.
> However, I don't think it helps things to go renaming core structures 
> in
> arch code because it sounds better... :)
I think I agree that 'struct vcpu' is nicer than 'struct exec_domain'. 
exec_domain appears hardly at all at the hypervisor interface, and 
having two different terms used interchangeably within Xen itself is 
weird.
Another I can think of is cpuset vs. cpumask: I went with the former 
but I like the latter equally well and there is no good reason not to 
go with the Linux convention on this one.
Perhaps we should have a flag day to move to agreed consistent naming 
on some of these? The changes are trivially scriptable for the most 
part, but annoying for those with pending patches.
 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel