On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:38:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>> * @priv: a pointer for the virtqueue implementation to use.
> >>>> */
> >>>> struct virtqueue {
> >>>> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ struct virtqueue {
> >>>> void (*callback)(struct virtqueue *vq);
> >>>> const char *name;
> >>>> struct virtio_device *vdev;
> >>>> + void *vdev_priv;
> >>>> void *priv;
> >>>
> >>> The name is confusing: it seems to imply it's a device pointer.
> >>
> >> ... it's private to the driver that owns vdev, hence the name.
> >
> > I own a car but I'm not called Michael Car :)
> > driver_priv might be ok too. unfortunately virtio-pci
> > is also a driver so it can be misunderstood.
>
> Yes. Is fixing the comment and keeping the vdev_priv name ok with you?
This puts it lower on the scale of bad interfaces but
I think we still need a better name.
> > devices should dominate. ring is an implementation detail.
>
> Ring came first, ring gets the nice name. :)
>
> Paolo
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
