Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 6/9] conf: Rename cachetune to restune
-----Original Message-----
From: John Ferlan [mailto:jferlan@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 12:33 AM
To: Niu, Bing <bing.niu(a)intel.com>; libvir-list(a)redhat.com
Cc: Feng, Shaohe <shaohe.feng(a)intel.com>; Wang, Huaqiang
<huaqiang.wang(a)intel.com>; Ding, Jian-feng <jian-feng.ding(a)intel.com>;
rui.zang(a)yandex.com
Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 6/9] conf: Rename cachetune to restune
On 07/18/2018 03:57 AM, bing.niu(a)intel.com wrote:
> From: Bing Niu <bing.niu(a)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(a)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
[...]