On 25.07.2019 12:11, Paul Durrant wrote: >> -----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?
We use "flags" too often imo. What about "options" as suggested by Roger, or "settings"? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
