-----Original Message----- From: John Ferlan [mailto:jferlan@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 12:33 AM To: Niu, Bing <bing.niu@intel.com>; libvir-list@redhat.com Cc: Feng, Shaohe <shaohe.feng@intel.com>; Wang, Huaqiang <huaqiang.wang@intel.com>; Ding, Jian-feng <jian-feng.ding@intel.com>; rui.zang@yandex.com Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 6/9] conf: Rename cachetune to restune
On 07/18/2018 03:57 AM, bing.niu@intel.com wrote:
From: Bing Niu <bing.niu@intel.com>
Resctrl not only supports cache tuning, but also memory bandwidth tuning. Renaming cachetune to restune(resource tuning) to reflect that. With restune, all allocation for different resources (cache, memory bandwidth) are aggregated and represented by a virResctrlAllocPtr inside virDomainRestuneDef.
Signed-off-by: Bing Niu <bing.niu@intel.com> --- src/conf/domain_conf.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- src/conf/domain_conf.h | 10 +++++----- src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 2 +- src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
As I noted previously, not much a fan of Restune instead of Cachetune, but I understand the logic why you went that way.
I wonder if "virDomainResAllocDef" is any better (resallocs, nresallocs)? or if that clashes with any other namespace so far? or is too close to virResctrlAllocPtr.
Or perhaps "virDomainResCtrlDef" w/ resctrls and nresctrls to mimic the virresctrl.{c,h} naming scheme.
Hi John, I have made a comment without reading above line... Yes! This is what I want to change for the naming. 'virDomainResCtrlDef' looks Ok for me.
As previously stated, "Naming is hard"... Wish there was more feedback than just me on this, but in the long run, I'll go with whatever the Intel team agrees upon as it's not that big a deal. If someone else has agita after things are pushed and wants to change the name, then they know how to send patches.
John
[...]