On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.04.2021 10:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > Just to be sure that we are in the same page, are you suggesting to modify
> > the name
> > In this way?
> >
> > struct gnttab_cache_flush {
> > - union {
> > + union xen_gnttab_cache_flush_a {
> > uint64_t dev_bus_addr;
> > grant_ref_t ref;
> > } a;
> >
> > Following this kind of pattern: xen_<upper struct name>_<member name> ?
>
> While in general I would be fine with this scheme, for field names like
> "a" or "u" it doesn't fit well imo.
"a" is a bad name anyway, even for the member. We can take the
opportunity to find a better name. Almost anything would be better than
"a". Maybe "refaddr"?
> I'm also unconvinced this would be
> scalable to the case where there's further struct/union nesting.
How many of these instances of multilevel nesting do we have? Luca might
know. Probably not many? They could be special-cased.
