Re: [PATCH 10/21] migration: Move rate_limit_max and rate_limit_used to migration_stats

[Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>]

Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org> wrote:
> On 5/8/23 15:08, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> This way we can make them atomic and use this functions from any
>> place.  I also moved all functions that use rate_limit to
>> migration-stats.
>> Functions got renamed, they are not qemu_file anymore.
>> qemu_file_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_exceeded
>> qemu_file_set_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_set
>> qemu_file_get_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_get
>> qemu_file_reset_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_reset
>> qemu_file_acct_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_account.
>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> If you have any good suggestion for better names, I am all ears.
>
> May be :
>
>  qemu_file_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_is_exceeded

I try not to put _is_ in function names.  If it needs to be there, I
think that I need to rename the functino.

migration_rate_limit_exceeded()

seems clear to me.


>  qemu_file_acct_rate_limit -> migration_rate_limit_inc

My problem for this one is that we are not increasing the rate_limit, we
are "decreasing" the amount of data we have for this period.  That is
why I thought about _account(), but who knows.


> Also, migration_rate_limit() would need some prefix to understand what is
> its purpose.

What do you mean here?
This is the only rate_limit that I can think in migration.

> Do we really need "_limit" in the names ?

You have a point here.

If nobody complains/suggest anything else, I will drop the _limit for
the next submission.

Thanks very much.