On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 03:45:12PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:54:19 -0400
> Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:08:21AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> > > index 0aa542fa1e26..9aedb78a4ae3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> > > @@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ struct vfio_pci_device {
> > > bool needs_reset;
> > > bool nointx;
> > > bool needs_pm_restore;
> > > + bool zapped_bars;
> >
> > Would it be nicer to invert the meaning of "zapped_bars" and rename it to
> > "memory_enabled"? Thanks,
>
> I think this has it's own down sides, for example is this really less
> confusing?:
>
> if (!vdev->memory_enabled && __vfio_pci_memory_enabled(vdev))
Maybe "memory_enabled_last"? No strong opinion, especially for namings. :)
zapped_bars still looks okay to me. Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
