Re: [PATCH 08/15] fuse: Introduce fuse_{at,de}tach_handlers()

[Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com>]

On 01.04.25 15:55, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 05:06:48PM +0100, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
>> Pull setting up and tearing down the AIO context handlers into two
>> dedicated functions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   block/export/fuse.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/export/fuse.c b/block/export/fuse.c
>> index 2df6297d61..bd98809d71 100644
>> --- a/block/export/fuse.c
>> +++ b/block/export/fuse.c
>> @@ -78,27 +78,34 @@ static void read_from_fuse_export(void *opaque);
>>   static bool is_regular_file(const char *path, Error **errp);
>>   
>>   
>> -static void fuse_export_drained_begin(void *opaque)
>> +static void fuse_attach_handlers(FuseExport *exp)
>>   {
>> -    FuseExport *exp = opaque;
>> +    aio_set_fd_handler(exp->common.ctx,
>> +                       fuse_session_fd(exp->fuse_session),
>> +                       read_from_fuse_export, NULL, NULL, NULL, exp);
>> +    exp->fd_handler_set_up = true;
> I found this name mildly confusing (does "set_up=true" mean that I
> still need to set up, or that I am already set up);

Not my fault that English has irregular verbs.  FWIW, if I meant the 
former, I’d probably call it “set_up_fd_handler” instead.

> would it be better
> as s/fd_handler_set_up/fd_handler_armed/g ?

I prefer the less militaristic “installed”, but sure.

Hanna