On 01/27/2016 12:39 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 18:56 -0500, John Ferlan wrote: >>> +/** >>> + * virHostdevPCINodeDeviceReAttach: >> >> ^^ Oy ReAttach vs. Reattach is an eye test ;-) > > Maybe we should standardize on either one or the other? I personally > consider "ReAttach" to be quite an eyesore, but then again it's all > over the public API so it's not going anywhere... > Sadly, I think we're stuck with that CaMel case because it's a driver function... >>> + * @hostdev_mgr: hostdev manager >>> + * @pci: PCI device >> >> Perhaps better to indicate a "new"ly generated PCI device that does not >> track the internal reattach states and other state information such as >> the stub driver. >> >> IOW: this is not a copy of an [in]activePCIHostdevs element > > Great idea! Maybe even use a different name for the parameter, based > on whether the virPCIDevicePtr is going to be used for something other > than looking up the actual device? This is I believe where I went back to patch 1 and started thinking about what is passed in 'pci'... Anything to help make things more obvious could be beneficial, especially considering what this code ends up doing... John > > Cheers. > > -- > Andrea Bolognani > Software Engineer - Virtualization Team > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list