From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: add kvm_has_request wrapper
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:29:20 +0200
Message-ID: <55CC6370.3080606@redhat.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>
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: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150813091110.GA26977@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org



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 operati=
ons
> (or if programming would be better if German was its language),
>=20
>   kvm_test_request
>   kvm_set_request
>   kvm_clear_request
>   kvm_test_and_clear_request
>=20
> The only disadvantage is that
>   kvm_test_and_clear_request
> is longer than
>   kvm_check_request
>                    123456789
> by whooping 9 characters.
>=20
> I could live with that.

Yes, that would be much better.

Paolo