On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 09:51:18PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote: > On 3/18/21 5:00 PM, Olaf Hering wrote: > > Am Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:26:14 -0600 > > schrieb Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxx>: > > > > > Maybe libxlDomainCreateRestoreWrap? > > > The 'Wrap' suffix compliments the libxl_api_wrap.h name suggestion. > > > > "Naming conventions" does not cover API wrapping. > > I was referring to the use of '_' in the names. From the coding style doc: > "Underscores should not be used in function names". The style doc doesn't > dictate the words used to form function names, but does suggest a > vir$object$verb$subject pattern. > > > Some of the names are already taken, like libxl_domain_shutdown/libxlDomainShutdown. > > In hindsight I would have probably used the 'vir' prefix in the driver entry > points, e.g. virlibxlDomainShutdown (libxl_driver.c), giving some > flexibility for driver-internal function naming. There is nothing preventing > such change now, other than the future annoyance of backport conflicts. FWIW, in retrospect, I think we shouldn't have used "libxl" as a naming convention anywhere in libvirt - neither filenames or method names. This is a Xen driver, and libxl is just an impl detail. IOW, I we ought to have just use "virXen" as the method name / typedef prefix, and xen_driver.c as filename, etc. Obviously we avoided this originally to distinguish the new impl from the old XenD, but I think that was a mistake in retrospect, as we optimized for something that was only going to exist for a few further years, as opposed to optimizing for the long term where the libxl impl is the only one. I don't feel strongly about whether you stick with current naming conventions of change it to anything else - just wanted to throw this out there as a option. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
