Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 3] RFC: mem_event: use wait queue when ring is full

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.11.11 at 10:01, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 23/11/2011 08:49, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>>>> On 22.11.11 at 22:13, Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -615,9 +620,12 @@ static inline struct domain *next_domain
>>>   /* VCPU affinity has changed: migrating to a new CPU. */
>>>  #define _VPF_migrating       3
>>>  #define VPF_migrating        (1UL<<_VPF_migrating)
>>> - /* VCPU is blocked on memory-event ring. */
>>> -#define _VPF_mem_event       4
>>> -#define VPF_mem_event        (1UL<<_VPF_mem_event)
>>> + /* VCPU is blocked on mem_paging ring. */
>>> +#define _VPF_me_mem_paging   4
>>> +#define VPF_me_mem_paging    (1UL<<_VPF_me_mem_paging)
>>> + /* VCPU is blocked on mem_access ring. */
>>> +#define _VPF_me_mem_access   5
>>> +#define VPF_me_mem_access    (1UL<<_VPF_me_mem_access)
>> 
>> Same here - the mem_ seems superfluous.
> 
> Mem_event-related flags in a more general grouping do require a mem_ prefix
> imo. The names need to stand on their own and still be descriptive.

But me_mem_ is still bogus - I thought the me_ stands for "mem event",
and then the subsequent mem_ is unnecessary.

Jan


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