
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:18:30 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Rename all the pciDeviceXXX and pciXXXDevice APIs to have a fixed virPCIDevice name prefix
Some functions gained just virPCI prefix, I guess that means they don't take virPCIDevicePtr arguments. In any case, the shorter prefix the better so I'm not opposed to it :-) ...
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_hostdev.c b/src/qemu/qemu_hostdev.c index 1b8a9cd..b5d7c5e 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_hostdev.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_hostdev.c ... @@ -856,7 +856,7 @@ void qemuDomainReAttachHostdevDevices(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, hostdevs, nhostdevs))) { virErrorPtr err = virGetLastError(); - VIR_ERROR(_("Failed to allocate pciDeviceList: %s"), + VIR_ERROR(_("Failed to allocate virPCIDeviceList: %s"),
Why not just "PCI device list"?
err ? err->message : _("unknown error")); virResetError(err); goto cleanup;
...
diff --git a/src/util/virpci.c b/src/util/virpci.c index 0fb9923..695f372 100644 --- a/src/util/virpci.c +++ b/src/util/virpci.c ... @@ -748,39 +748,39 @@ pciTryPowerManagementReset(pciDevice *dev, int cfgfd) }
static int -pciInitDevice(pciDevice *dev, int cfgfd) +virPCIDeviceInitDevice(virPCIDevicePtr dev, int cfgfd)
Why not just virPCIDeviceInit?
{ int flr;
- dev->pcie_cap_pos = pciFindCapabilityOffset(dev, cfgfd, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP); - dev->pci_pm_cap_pos = pciFindCapabilityOffset(dev, cfgfd, PCI_CAP_ID_PM); - flr = pciDetectFunctionLevelReset(dev, cfgfd); + dev->pcie_cap_pos = virPCIDeviceFindCapabilityOffset(dev, cfgfd, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP); + dev->pci_pm_cap_pos = virPCIDeviceFindCapabilityOffset(dev, cfgfd, PCI_CAP_ID_PM); + flr = virPCIDeviceDetectFunctionLevelReset(dev, cfgfd); if (flr < 0) return flr; dev->has_flr = flr; - dev->has_pm_reset = pciDetectPowerManagementReset(dev, cfgfd); + dev->has_pm_reset = virPCIDeviceDetectPowerManagementReset(dev, cfgfd);
return 0; } ... @@ -887,13 +887,13 @@ recheck: }
static int -pciUnbindDeviceFromStub(pciDevice *dev, const char *driver) +virPCIDeviceUnbindDeviceFromStub(virPCIDevicePtr dev, const char *driver)
virPCIDeviceUnbindFromStub would be a much better name.
{ int result = -1; char *drvdir = NULL; char *path = NULL;
- if (pciDriverDir(&drvdir, driver) < 0) + if (virPCIDriverDir(&drvdir, driver) < 0) goto cleanup;
if (!dev->unbind_from_stub) ... @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ cleanup:
static int -pciBindDeviceToStub(pciDevice *dev, const char *driver) +virPCIDeviceBindDeviceToStub(virPCIDevicePtr dev, const char *driver)
virPCIDeviceBindToStub sounds better.
{ int result = -1; char *drvdir = NULL; ... @@ -1118,36 +1118,36 @@ cleanup: VIR_FREE(path);
if (result < 0) { - pciUnbindDeviceFromStub(dev, driver); + virPCIDeviceUnbindDeviceFromStub(dev, driver); }
return result; }
int -pciDettachDevice(pciDevice *dev, - pciDeviceList *activeDevs, - pciDeviceList *inactiveDevs, - const char *driver) +virPCIDeviceDettach(virPCIDevicePtr dev, + virPCIDeviceList *activeDevs, + virPCIDeviceList *inactiveDevs, + const char *driver)
Since you're already changing the function name, you could have fixed the typo: virPCIDeviceDetach.
{ - if (pciProbeStubDriver(driver) < 0) { + if (virPCIProbeStubDriver(driver) < 0) { virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, _("Failed to load PCI stub module %s"), driver); return -1; } ... @@ -1155,29 +1155,29 @@ pciDettachDevice(pciDevice *dev, }
int -pciReAttachDevice(pciDevice *dev, - pciDeviceList *activeDevs, - pciDeviceList *inactiveDevs, - const char *driver) +virPCIDeviceReAttach(virPCIDevicePtr dev, + virPCIDeviceListPtr activeDevs, + virPCIDeviceListPtr inactiveDevs, + const char *driver)
I'd make the "A" lower case.
{ - if (pciProbeStubDriver(driver) < 0) { + if (virPCIProbeStubDriver(driver) < 0) { virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, _("Failed to load PCI stub module %s"), driver); return -1; } ... @@ -1292,12 +1292,12 @@ pciWaitForDeviceCleanup(pciDevice *dev, const char *matcher) }
static char * -pciReadDeviceID(pciDevice *dev, const char *id_name) +virPCIDeviceReadDeviceID(virPCIDevicePtr dev, const char *id_name)
Would virPCIDeviceReadID be better? I'm not sure but DeviceReadDeviceID is weird.
{ char *path = NULL; char *id_str;
- if (pciDeviceFile(&path, dev->name, id_name) < 0) { + if (virPCIFile(&path, dev->name, id_name) < 0) { return NULL; }
...
@@ -1880,8 +1880,8 @@ out: }
static int -pciGetPciConfigAddressFromSysfsDeviceLink(const char *device_link, - struct pci_config_address **bdf) +virPCIGetDeviceAddressFromSysfsDeviceLink(const char *device_link, + virPCIDeviceAddressPtr *bdf)
virPCIGetDeviceAddressFromSysfsLink would sound a bit better to me.
{ char *config_address = NULL; char *device_path = NULL; ...
ACK whether you implement changes I suggested or not (or just some of them) as long as make all check syntax-check succeeds. Jirka