[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 3/3] xen/evtchn: Clean up teardown handling
On 22.12.2020 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/12/2020 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 21.12.2020 19:14, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> First of all, rename the evtchn APIs: >>> * evtchn_destroy => evtchn_teardown >>> * evtchn_destroy_final => evtchn_destroy >> I wonder in how far this is going to cause confusion with backports >> down the road. May I suggest to do only the first of the two renames, >> at least until in a couple of year's time? Or make the second rename >> to e.g. evtchn_cleanup() or evtchn_deinit()? > > I considered backports, but I don't think it will be an issue. The > contents of the two functions are very different, and we're not likely > to be moving the callers in backports. Does the same also apply to the old and new call sites of the functions? > I'm not fussed about the exact naming, so long as we can make and > agreement and adhere to it strictly. The current APIs are a total mess. > > I used teardown/destroy because that seems to be one common theme in the > APIs, but it will require some to change their name. So for domains "teardown" and "destroy" pair up with "create". I don't think evtchn_create() is a sensible name (the function doesn't really "create" anything); evtchn_init() seems quite a bit better to me, and hence evtchn_deinit() could be its counterpart. In particular I don't think all smaller entity functions involved in doing "xyz" for a larger entity need to have "xyz" in their names. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |