From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: add kvm_has_request wrapper
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:03:20 +0200
Message-ID: <55CC6B68.9090903@de.ibm.com>
References: <1438792381-19453-1-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <1438792381-19453-2-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <55CBA523.3010007@de.ibm.com> <20150813091110.GA26977@potion.brq.redhat.com> <55CC6370.3080606@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <55CC6370.3080606@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Am 13.08.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>=20
>=20
> On 13/08/2015 11:11, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 wrote:
>>>> for the new interface. maybe we can rename kvm_check_request in a =
separate patch somewhen.
>> I wonder why haven't we copied the naming convention from bit operat=
ions
>> (or if programming would be better if German was its language),
>>
>>   kvm_test_request
>>   kvm_set_request
>>   kvm_clear_request
>>   kvm_test_and_clear_request
>>
>> The only disadvantage is that
>>   kvm_test_and_clear_request
>> is longer than
>>   kvm_check_request
>>                    123456789
>> by whooping 9 characters.
>>
>> I could live with that.
>=20
> Yes, that would be much better.

+1