> -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Pau Monne <[email protected]> > Sent: 25 July 2019 10:23 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Stefano Stabellini > <[email protected]>; Wei Liu <[email protected]>; > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>; George Dunlap > <[email protected]>; Andrew > Cooper <[email protected]>; Ian Jackson <[email protected]>; Tim > (Xen.org) <[email protected]>; > Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/6] domain: stash xen_domctl_createdomain > flags in struct domain > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > > These are canonical source of data used to set various other flags. If > > they are available directly in struct domain then the other flags are no > > longer needed. > > > > This patch simply copies the flags into a new 'createflags' field in > > struct domain. Subsequent patches will do the related clean-up work. > > Thanks! > > Just one naming comment (which is subject to taste I guess). > > > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/sched.h b/xen/include/xen/sched.h > > index b40c8fd138..edae372c2b 100644 > > --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h > > @@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ enum guest_type { > > > > struct domain > > { > > + unsigned int createflags; > > Can you name this just flags or options or some such (without the > create prefix). IMO adding the create prefix makes it look like a > field only used during domain creation, while it's not the case.
I guess naming it simply 'flags' would be ok coupled with a comment in the header stating that the field is merely a copy of the domain create flags. Anyone else got opinions on this? Paul > > Thanks, Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
