On 2012-09-09 16:01, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/20/2012 11:55 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> No need to expose the fd-based interface, everyone will already be fine >> with the more handy EventNotifier variant. Rename the latter to clarify >> that we are still talking about irqfds here. > > Thanks, applied. > >> >> -int kvm_irqchip_add_irqfd(KVMState *s, int fd, int virq); >> -int kvm_irqchip_remove_irqfd(KVMState *s, int fd, int virq); >> -int kvm_irqchip_add_irq_notifier(KVMState *s, EventNotifier *n, int virq); >> -int kvm_irqchip_remove_irq_notifier(KVMState *s, EventNotifier *n, int >> virq); >> +int kvm_irqchip_add_irqfd_notifier(KVMState *s, EventNotifier *n, int virq); >> +int kvm_irqchip_remove_irqfd_notifier(KVMState *s, EventNotifier *n, int >> virq); >> #endif > > Those names aren't particularly satisfying. add_irqfd_notifier implies > you want to be notified about irqfd events, but that's not what the > function does. Not sure what a good name would be.
Now that there are no more variants, we could also drop the "notifier" from the name again. Better? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
