[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 3] RFC: mem_event: use wait queue when ring is full
>>> On 23.11.11 at 10:01, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23/11/2011 08:49, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> On 22.11.11 at 22:13, Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> @@ -615,9 +620,12 @@ static inline struct domain *next_domain >>> /* VCPU affinity has changed: migrating to a new CPU. */ >>> #define _VPF_migrating 3 >>> #define VPF_migrating (1UL<<_VPF_migrating) >>> - /* VCPU is blocked on memory-event ring. */ >>> -#define _VPF_mem_event 4 >>> -#define VPF_mem_event (1UL<<_VPF_mem_event) >>> + /* VCPU is blocked on mem_paging ring. */ >>> +#define _VPF_me_mem_paging 4 >>> +#define VPF_me_mem_paging (1UL<<_VPF_me_mem_paging) >>> + /* VCPU is blocked on mem_access ring. */ >>> +#define _VPF_me_mem_access 5 >>> +#define VPF_me_mem_access (1UL<<_VPF_me_mem_access) >> >> Same here - the mem_ seems superfluous. > > Mem_event-related flags in a more general grouping do require a mem_ prefix > imo. The names need to stand on their own and still be descriptive. But me_mem_ is still bogus - I thought the me_ stands for "mem event", and then the subsequent mem_ is unnecessary. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |