* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > > > Well, in OpenVZ everything is in kernel/cpt/ and prefixed with "cpt_" > > > and "rst_". > > > > So? > > > > We're not merging OpenVZ code _either_. > > This is to give example of other prefixes: cpt_ and rst_ > Are they fine? Not really. 'rst' can be easily mistaken for 'reset' and neither really tells me at a glance what they do. They are also quite tongue-twisters. See my namespace analysis and suggestions from yesterday for a proper naming scheme. The key i believe is to move away from this singular 'the world is all about checkpoint and restore', and move it to a IMHO clearer state_*() type of naming which really isolates all these kernel state save/restore management APIs from other kernel APIs. (See my mail from yesterday for details.) kstate_*() would be another, perhaps even clearer naming scheme. I.e.: kstate_checkpoint_XYZ() kstate_restore_XYZ() kstate_collect_XYZ() kstate_dump_XYZ() kstate_image_XYZ() ... Just _look_ at them - they are expressive at a glance, and reasonably short. That is the kind of first-time impression we need, not a 'wtf?' moment. I just checked, there's zero hits on "git grep \<kstate_" in the kernel, so it's a pristine namespace. IMHO, go wild ... Ingo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
