WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and non-forced d

To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and non-forced device remove
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:44:02 +0100
Cc: Jonathan Ludlam <Jonathan.Ludlam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike McClurg <mike.mcclurg@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Scott <Dave.Scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:44:51 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20109.55712.847181.699115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <patchbomb.1317389593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dd195d45be273cf85ef0.1317389603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20109.55712.847181.699115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 17:38 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and 
> non-forced device remove"):
> > libxl: separate forced and non-forced device remove.
> ...
> >   * the term "destroy" is normally used in libxl for data-type destructors.
> 
> I've always thought this was odd.  Perhaps we should rename all of
> those "free" and then we could use "destroy" just for domain
> destruction and other kinds of violent activity.

The original rationale for the name was that the libxl_TYPE_destroy
functions only free the content of the datastructure but not the
datastructure itself and that calling such a function free() would be
potentially confusing.

On the other hand not being able to use "destroy" as a term for things
related domain destruction is a pain too.

Thesaurus.com suggests various things for destroy and/or free which we
could use for the type destructors. There's lots of fun sounding ones
("bollix up", "enfranchise") but "release" perhaps?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>