[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/4] PCI: introduce helper functions for device flag operation
Both of you and Alex W prefer the 'Verb' , Ok, I accept the suggestion. Thanks, Ethan On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/28/2014 07:43 PM, ethan zhao wrote: >> >> On 2014/7/29 10:31, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 09:53 +0800, ethan zhao wrote: >>>> On 2014/7/29 5:00, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 00:19 +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote: >>>>>> This patch introduced three helper functions to hide direct >>>>>> device flag operation. >>>>>> >>>>>> void pci_set_dev_assigned(struct pci_dev *pdev); >>>>>> void pci_set_dev_deassigned(struct pci_dev *pdev); >>>>>> bool pci_is_dev_assigned(struct pci_dev *pdev); >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> include/linux/pci.h | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h >>>>>> index aab57b4..5f6f8fa 100644 >>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pci.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h >>>>>> @@ -1129,6 +1129,19 @@ resource_size_t >>>>>> pcibios_window_alignment(struct pci_bus *bus, >>>>>> int pci_set_vga_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool decode, >>>>>> unsigned int command_bits, u32 flags); >>>>>> +/* helper functions for operation of device flag */ >>>>>> +static inline void pci_set_dev_assigned(struct pci_dev *pdev) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + pdev->dev_flags |= PCI_DEV_FLAGS_ASSIGNED; >>>>>> +} >>>>>> +static inline void pci_set_dev_deassigned(struct pci_dev *pdev) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + pdev->dev_flags &= ~PCI_DEV_FLAGS_ASSIGNED; >>>>>> +} >>>>> I think pci_clear_dev_assigned() would make more sense, we're not >>>>> setting a flag named DEASSIGNED. >>>> Though it is a flag operation now, may not later, we define it >>>> because we want to hide the internal operation. >>>> 'set' to 'deassigned' status is enough. So I would like keep it. >>> I disagree, the opposite of a 'set' is a 'clear', or at least an >>> 'unset'. Using bit-ops-like terminology doesn't lock us into an >>> implementation. As written, this could just as easily be setting two >>> different variables. >> So there are two pairs of opposite: >> >> set assigned ---> unset assigned >> set assigned ---> set deassigned >> >> Here you prefer the 'verb' set /unset, and I prefer the 'adj.' assigned >> / deassigned. >> >> Do they really have different meaning or make confusion ? I don't think >> so. >> >> Thanks, >> Ethan >> > > I agree with Alex W. If you are going to use the "set" name you should > probably use "clear" for the operation that undoes it. Using the term > set implies that it is setting a bit and we currently don't have a > deassigned/unassigned bit. > > If that doesn't work perhaps you could use something like > get/put_assigned_device or acquire/release_assigned_device. You just > need to describe what it is you are doing. You could even consider > adding some tests to return an error if you attempt to assign a device > that is already assigned. > > Thanks, > > Alex D > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |