Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 05/13] x86: expose CBM length and COS number information

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 09:07 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.05.15 at 04:47, <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:26:03PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> 
> >> > --- a/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
> >> > +++ b/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
> >> > @@ -694,6 +694,20 @@ struct xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo {
> >> >  typedef struct xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo_t;
> >> >  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo_t);
> >> >  
> >> > +#define XEN_SYSCTL_PSR_CAT_get_l3_info               0
> >> > +struct xen_sysctl_psr_cat_op {
> >> > +    uint32_t cmd;       /* IN: XEN_SYSCTL_PSR_CAT_* */
> >> > +    uint32_t target;    /* IN: socket to be operated on */
> >> 
> >> If this is always the socket number, why would the variable be
> >> named anything other than "socket". If otoh subsequent patches
> >> use it differently, I think the comment should be omitted now
> >> rather than being dropped then (or it should be given its final
> >> wording from the beginning).
> > 
> > Or 'target to be operated on'?
> 
> Fine with me. Just not something that may end up being confusing.
> 
So, I really don't want to turn this into pure bikeshedding, but, for a
field called 'target', a comment saying 'target to be operated on' seems
rather pointless, and I'd go for omitting it (for now).

Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel