Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> | > So, what would be a good prefix ?
> | >
> | > cr_
> | > cr_checkpoint.h, libcr.a
> | > cr_checkpoint() cr_restart() cr_freeze() cr_migrate()
> | > struct cr_checkpoint_args, struct cr_restart_args
> | > acr_
> | > Only advantage over 'cr_' is lesser likelihood of collision
> | >
> | > acr_checkpoint.h, libacr.a
> | > acr_checkpoint() acr_restart() acr_freeze() acr_migrate()
> | > struct acr_checkpoint_args, struct acr_restart_args
> | >
> | > lxcr_
> | > lxcr_checkpoint.h, liblxcr.a
> | > lxcr_checkpoint() lxcr_restart() lxcr_freeze() lxcr_migrate()
> | > struct lxcr_checkpoint_args, struct lxcr_restart_args
> |
> | I do not think lxcr_ prefix is a good choice as lxc is about container
> | and could use different libraries for the checkpoint/restart function.
>
> I was thinking of lx as short for linux, but ok. we can drop lxcr_.
>
> Any NACKS to 'acr_' ? If not, I will go with it - for now :-)
>
I vote for 'cr_' to match the terminology we use in the docs
and emails ('c/r').
... and for brevity :p
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
