On 07/18/2018 03:57 AM, bing.niu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Bing Niu <bing.niu@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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.
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
[...]
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
