Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: sched: improve robustness (and rename) DOM2OP()

From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: sched: improve robustness (and rename) DOM2OP()
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:06:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55beb101-10be-1f33-3cfb-288436a9e3c2@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1491476341.18721.16.camel@citrix.com>

On 06/04/17 12:59, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 14:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 17/03/17 18:19, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
>>> @@ -77,8 +77,25 @@ static struct scheduler __read_mostly ops;
>>>           (( (opsptr)->fn != NULL ) ? (opsptr)->fn(opsptr,
>>> ##__VA_ARGS__ )  \
>>>            : (typeof((opsptr)->fn(opsptr, ##__VA_ARGS__)))0 )
>>>  
>>> -#define DOM2OP(_d)    (((_d)->cpupool == NULL) ? &ops : ((_d)-
>>>> cpupool->sched))
>>> -static inline struct scheduler *VCPU2OP(const struct vcpu *v)
>>> +static inline struct scheduler *dom_get_scheduler(const struct
>>> domain *d)
>>
>> Hmm -- I agree that VCPU2OP is probably not the right name, but I'm
>> not
>> a fan of the new name either; and I don't have an option I like
>> better yet.
>>
> Maybe:
> 
> domain_scheduler()
> vcpu_scheduler()
> 
> or
> 
> dom_scheduler()
> vcpu_scheduler()
> 
> I.e., basically getting rid of the 'get' part, which may misleadingly
> hint at some kind of reference counting.
> 
> Or, also trading 'scheduler' for 'ops':
> 
> dom_ops()
> vcpu_ops()

sched_ops_dom()
sched_ops_vcpu()

or

sched_dom_ops()
sched_vcpu_ops()


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel