2017-02-17 10:30+0100, Cornelia Huck: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100 > Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> kvm_make_request was a wrapper that added barriers to bit_set and >> kvm_check_request did the same for bit_test and bit_check, but the name >> was not very obvious and we were also lacking operations that cover >> bit_test and bit_clear, which resulted in an inconsistent use. >> >> The renaming: >> kvm_request_set <- kvm_make_request >> kvm_request_test_and_clear <- kvm_check_request >> >> Automated with coccinelle script: >> @@ >> expression VCPU, REQ; >> @@ >> -kvm_make_request(REQ, VCPU) >> +kvm_request_set(REQ, VCPU) >> >> @@ >> expression VCPU, REQ; >> @@ >> -kvm_check_request(REQ, VCPU) >> +kvm_request_test_and_clear(REQ, VCPU) > > Forgot your s-o-b? Oops, thanks. >> +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > Should we make req unsigned long as well, so that it matches the bit > api even more? >From the discussion that followed, I'll keep unsigned.
