On 01/17/2018 09:55 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 16 Jan 2018 11:26:40 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>      /* allocate a new entry in the l2 cache */
>>>  
>>> +    slice_size = s->l2_slice_size * sizeof(uint64_t);
>>
>> Would this read any better if the earlier patch named it
>> s->l2_slice_entries?
> 
> I had doubts with this. Like you, when I see size I tend to think about
> bytes. However both s->l1_size and s->l2_size indicate entries, and the
> documentation of the qcow2 format even describes the header field like
> this:
> 
>          36 - 39:   l1_size
>                     Number of entries in the active L1 table

We're free to rename the field in the qcow2 format specification if it
makes things easier to understand.  If l1_entries reads better than
l1_size, maybe it's worth doing.

> 
> So I decided to follow that same convention for l2_slice_size.
> 
> For the local variable I could call it slice_size_bytes or try to come
> up with a different alternative, but I'm open to suggestions.
> 
> Berto
> 

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org