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

["Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>]

On 5/15/23 15:09, Juan Quintela wrote:
> 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.

It is common practice for functions doing a simple test and returning a bool.
No big deal anyway.
  
> 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?

I am referring to :

   /* Returns true if the rate limiting was broken by an urgent request */
   bool migration_rate_limit(void)
   {
       ...
       return urgent;
   }

which existed prior to the name changes and I thought migration_rate_limit()
would suffer the same fate. May be keep the '_limit' suffix for this one if
you remove it for the others ?

Thanks,

C.


> 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.
>