[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150813091110.GA26977@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:11:11 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: add kvm_has_request wrapper
2015-08-12 21:57+0200, Christian Borntraeger:
> kvm_check_request is now somewhat a misnomer (what is the difference between test and check?)
kvm_check_request has always been poetic; it uses two meanings of
check, "examine" and "tick off", at the same time.
We also want something that clears the request, so kvm_drop_request was
my best candidate so far.
> for the new interface. maybe we can rename kvm_check_request in a separate patch somewhen.
I wonder why haven't we copied the naming convention from bit operations
(or if programming would be better if German was its language),
kvm_test_request
kvm_set_request
kvm_clear_request
kvm_test_and_clear_request
The only disadvantage is that
kvm_test_and_clear_request
is longer than
kvm_check_request
123456789
by whooping 9 characters.
I could live with that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists