On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:41 AM Mike Christie
<michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
It looks fine to me.
Thanks
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
