On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 05.06.2013 14:06, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 01:32:17PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 05.06.2013 13:10, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: > >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:50:52AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>>> Am 04.06.2013 20:51, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > >>>>> This series changes all PCI devices (the sole to support hotplug > >>>>> _and_ use MemoryRegions) to do memory_region_del_subregion at > >>>>> unrealize time, and memory_region_destroy at instance_finalize > >>>>> time. > >>>> > >>>> The general idea looks good. > >>>> > >>>> Could you please follow-up with a patch that switches from exit to > >>>> unrealize? > >>> > >>> What do you guys think about changing the name to something > >>> else e.g. "free" or "destroy"? > >> > >> I'm not generally opposed to renaming things, but current unrealize is a > >> pair with realize, and destroy or free doesn't really fit it's purpose - > >> that's instance_finalize. Let's CC Anthony. > > > > So @instance_init -> instance_alloc > > No, allocation happens before instance_init, it only initializes fields > of the instance, so that name seems good to me. > > My ISA realize patches (need to respin after Paolo enabled gus) worked > towards resolving the DeviceClass::init vs. instance_init ambiguity, so > once completed only instance_init and class_init would remain as > "init"s. PCI is a bit more involved, and would collide with this series; > Jesse's virtio-net config size issue is calling for converting > VirtioDevice, which might be quicker. > > > instance_finalize -> @instance_free? > > /me misunderstandable, sorry. It doesn't free the instance either, and > Java uses "finalize" too and so does .NET iirc.
Well the do not have initialize though, so if someone comes from .NET background that person will *still* be confused. I think we should use names that pair well and are not ambiguous: alloc/free create/destroy init/cleanup (some people do init/uninit) get/put ... These are all standard C things with no ambiguity. > Anyway, my point was, when moving stuff out of exit, we should also > change the signature to the new one - DeviceState* and (unused) Error**. > Then we're getting closer to removing the old exit field, and at that > point renaming individual hooks - if desired - becomes a trivial patch. > > Andreas Why is renaming new hooks related to getting rid of old ones? > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg