Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and non-forced device remove

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 17:38 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and 
> non-forced device remove"):
> > libxl: separate forced and non-forced device remove.
> ...
> >   * the term "destroy" is normally used in libxl for data-type destructors.
> 
> I've always thought this was odd.  Perhaps we should rename all of
> those "free" and then we could use "destroy" just for domain
> destruction and other kinds of violent activity.

The original rationale for the name was that the libxl_TYPE_destroy
functions only free the content of the datastructure but not the
datastructure itself and that calling such a function free() would be
potentially confusing.

On the other hand not being able to use "destroy" as a term for things
related domain destruction is a pain too.

Thesaurus.com suggests various things for destroy and/or free which we
could use for the type destructors. There's lots of fun sounding ones
("bollix up", "enfranchise") but "release" perhaps?

Ian.


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