On 6/7/22 8:05 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2022 06:44:46 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn is "crazy long".
How about:
get_mdev_for_apqn()
This function is static and the terms mdev and apqn are specific
enough that I
don't think it needs to start with vfio_ap. And there is no need to
state in
the function name that locks are acquired. That point will be obvious
to anyone
reading the prologue or the code.
The primary purpose of the function is to acquire the locks in the
proper order, so
I think the name should state that purpose. It may be obvious to someone
reading
the prologue or this function, but not so obvious in the context of the
calling function.
I agree with Tony. To me get_mdev_for_apqn() sounds like getting a
reference to a matrix_mdev object (and incrementing its refcount) or
something similar. BTW some more bike shedding: I prefer by_apqn instead
of for_apqn, because the set of locks we need to take is determined _by_
the apqn parameter, but it ain't semantically the set of locks we need
to perform an update operation on the apqn or on the queue associated
with the apqn. No strong opinion though -- I'm no native speaker and
prepositions are difficult for me.
I am a native speaker and I had to review prepositions. I learned
grammar in elementary school (grades 1-6) and have forgotten
much of the terminology as it relates to sentence structure. Anyway,
I digress. I'm okay with 'by_apqn'.
Regards,
Halil
