From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39265) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UkEfp-0006nb-SC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:26:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UkEfm-0008H0-Up for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:26:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47083) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UkEfm-0008Gw-MN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:26:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:27:18 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20130605142718.GA20565@redhat.com> References: <1370371954-8479-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <51AF09FC.50308@suse.de> <20130605111044.GL31830@redhat.com> <877gi867ny.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877gi867ny.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/39] Delay destruction of memory regions to instance_finalize List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:53:05AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: >=20 > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:50:52AM +0200, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: > >> Am 04.06.2013 20:51, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > >> > This series changes all PCI devices (the sole to support hotplug > >> > _and_ use MemoryRegions) to do memory_region_del_subregion at > >> > unrealize time, and memory_region_destroy at instance_finalize > >> > time. > >>=20 > >> The general idea looks good. > >>=20 > >> Could you please follow-up with a patch that switches from exit to > >> unrealize? > > > > What do you guys think about changing the name to something > > else e.g. "free" or "destroy"? >=20 > exit/unrealize !=3D free/destroy. >=20 > You don't actually free anything. See 00/39 in this series for a > precise description. That's where I got this. It says: "instance_finalize will reclaim the memory" > > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/american-english/?q=3Dunre= alize >=20 > English is a fluid language. I wouldn't worry too much about that. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Anthony Liguori Well I am not worried about English at all. I'm just confused by the function naming, and I think it can be improved. Can we have names actually say what a function is doing? There's no need to use ambiguous terms and then document what they mean. > > I can do it easily if people agree. > > > >> use BUS(), PCI_DEVICE() etc. to hide this. > >>=20 > >> Andreas > >>=20 > >> --=20 > >> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany > >> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FC= rnberg