From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xen/arm: smmu: Renaming struct iommu_domain *domain to, struct iommu_domain *iommu_domain Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:46:56 +0100 Message-ID: <552CFE30.70802@gmail.com> References: <551505B3.9020505@caviumnetworks.com> , <55155557.7020103@linaro.org> <1427462781997.9237@caviumnetworks.com> <1427877031.2115.212.camel@citrix.com> <55229518.4010306@citrix.com> <1429010110.15516.34.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1429010110.15516.34.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Julien Grall Cc: "Prasun.kapoor@cavium.com" , Stefano Stabellini , "Jaggi, Manish" , Julien Grall , Xen Devel , "Kumar, Vijaya" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 14/04/15 12:15, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 16:15 +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> On 01/04/2015 10:30, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 17:48 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>> If it helps we could add a couple of comments on top of the structs in >>>> smmu.c to explain the meaning of the fields, like: >>>> >>>> >>>> /* iommu_domain, not to be confused with a Xen domain */ >>> >>> I was going to suggest something similar but more expansive, i.e. a >>> table of them all in one place (i.e. at the top of the file) for ease of >>> referencing: >>> >>> Struct Name What Wherefrom Normally found in >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> iommu_domain IOMMU Context Linux d->arch.blah >>> arch_smmu_xen_device Device specific Xen device->arch.blurg >> >> The actual name of the structure is arm_smmu_xen_device not >> arch_smmu_xen_device. Did you suggest to rename the name? > > No, I was just suggesting someone should create such a table with actual > current information, instead of made up filler, in it. (you'll notice > that there is, hopefully, no field blah in d->arch either nor > device->arch.blurg in the tree either and please don't rename the field > to match those ;-)). Thanks for the clarification. I wanted a confirmation because on another thread [1], Manish said you were suggested a new name. I think a table describing the different structure would be nice. Regards, [1] http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-04/msg00473.html -- Julien Grall