From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56979) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f920R-0000Ht-0b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 01:21:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f920N-0004MV-Qb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 01:21:14 -0400 References: <1524054707-20663-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1524054707-20663-2-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1170d2d8-a77e-1839-ae64-81f791b3d4e1@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <5dd02aa8-b3de-affd-cec8-52aed0552763@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:20:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1170d2d8-a77e-1839-ae64-81f791b3d4e1@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 for-2.13 1/4] pc-bios/s390-ccw/net: Split up net_load() into init, load and uninit parts List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Farhan Ali , Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Viktor Mihajlovski Cc: Collin Walling , Cornelia Huck , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 18.04.2018 20:11, Farhan Ali wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 04/18/2018 08:31 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> When we want to support pxelinux-style network booting later, we've go= t >> to do several TFTP transfers - and we do not want to apply for a new I= P >> address via DHCP each time. So split up net_load into three parts: >> >> 1. net_init(), which initializes virtio-net, gets an IP address via DH= CP >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 and prints out the related information. >> >> 2. The tftp_load call is now moved directly into the main() function >> >> 3. A new net_uninit() function which should tear down the network stac= k >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 before we are done in the firmware. >> >> This will make it easier to extend the code in the next patches. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth >=20 >=20 > Just a minor nit, if we could rename *_uninit functions to > destroy/release? I think it's just easier to read Sure. Completely unrepresentative statistics from my QEMU repository: $ grep -r uninit . | wc -l 212 $ grep -r destroy . | wc -l 904 $ grep -r release . | wc -l 1133 So I think I'll go with "release". Thomas