On 12/7/21 9:49 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:45 AM Mike Christie
> <michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> vhost_poll_flush() is a simple wrapper around vhost_work_dev_flush().
>> It gives wrong impression that we are doing some work over vhost_poll,
>> while in fact it flushes vhost_poll->dev.
>
> This "problem" is a byproduct of 7235acdb1144 ("vhost: simplify work flushing").
>
> Before that we indeed have per poll flush flush.
>
>> It only complicate understanding of the code and leads to mistakes
>> like flushing the same vhost_dev several times in a row.
>>
>> Just remove vhost_poll_flush() and call vhost_work_dev_flush() directly.
>
> Not a native speaker but since we don't have an per work flush, is it
> better to rename this simply as vhost_flush()?
>
What about vhost_dev_flush?
For the existing naming when we have a function exported we tend to have
"vhost_" then the object/struct it works on then the action.
For work we have:
vhost_work_queue/init
(we also have vhost_has_work which doesn't follow that pattern but
would sound strange as vhost_work_has so ignore that one).
For dev operations we have:
vhost_dev_reset_owner/set_owner/has_owner/cleanup/init
For the flush operation I wanted it to reflect it flushed all work
on the device, so I mashed up the work and dev naming above and
I agree it's a little strange.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
