[PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Andrew Cooper]

struct vcpu pointers are traditionally v rather than d.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
---
 xen/include/xen/sched.h |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/include/xen/sched.h b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
index 1765e18..2e83f08 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
@@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
 int  sched_id(void);
 void sched_tick_suspend(void);
 void sched_tick_resume(void);
-void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
-void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
-void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
+void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
+void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
+void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
 
 /*
  * Force synchronisation of given VCPU's state. If it is currently descheduled,
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Keir Fraser]

On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

> struct vcpu pointers are traditionally v rather than d.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>

Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

> ---
>  xen/include/xen/sched.h |    6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/sched.h b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> index 1765e18..2e83f08 100644
> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t
> *);
>  int  sched_id(void);
>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
>  
>  /*
>   * Force synchronisation of given VCPU's state. If it is currently
> descheduled,

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> struct vcpu pointers are traditionally v rather than d.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
>> George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

I'll commit it as is, but ...

>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
>>  int  sched_id(void);
>>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
>>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
>> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
>> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
>> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
>> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
>> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
>> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);

... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
You may have noted that for quite some time patches of mine have
already been doing that (and a trace of this can even be seen in the
patch hunk header above). I would even suggest adding a
respective statement to the coding style document.

Jan

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Tim Deegan]

At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> struct vcpu pointers are traditionally v rather than d.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> >> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
> >> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> >> George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
> 
> I'll commit it as is, but ...
> 
> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
> >>  int  sched_id(void);
> >>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
> >>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
> >> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
> >> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
> >> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
> >> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
> >> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
> >> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
> 
> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.

I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.

Tim.

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 11.10.13 at 11:40, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
> At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> >> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
>> >>  int  sched_id(void);
>> >>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
>> >>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
>> >> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
>> >> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
>> >> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
>> 
>> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
>> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
> 
> I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.

Any specific reason for that?

Jan

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Tim Deegan]

At 12:49 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381495754), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.10.13 at 11:40, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
> > At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >> >> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
> >> >>  int  sched_id(void);
> >> >>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
> >> >>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
> >> >> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
> >> >> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
> >> 
> >> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
> >> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
> > 
> > I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.
> 
> Any specific reason for that?

Nothing very strong -- I just find it easier to read, and more
consistent (since we do need to keep the names of _some_ arguments).

I know there are lots of type-only declarations in the tree already, and
I'm not suggesting we get rid of them, but I wouldn't like to see it
become the prescribed coding style.

Cheers,

Tim.

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Keir Fraser]

On 11/10/2013 13:06, "Tim Deegan" <tim@xen.org> wrote:

>>>> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
>>>> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
>>> 
>>> I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.
>> 
>> Any specific reason for that?
> 
> Nothing very strong -- I just find it easier to read, and more
> consistent (since we do need to keep the names of _some_ arguments).
> 
> I know there are lots of type-only declarations in the tree already, and
> I'm not suggesting we get rid of them, but I wouldn't like to see it
> become the prescribed coding style.

I agree with this.

 -- Keir

Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[George Dunlap]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
> At 12:49 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381495754), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 11.10.13 at 11:40, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
>> > At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> >> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> >> >> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
>> >> >>  int  sched_id(void);
>> >> >>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
>> >> >>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
>> >> >> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> >> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
>> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
>> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
>> >>
>> >> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
>> >> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
>> >
>> > I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.
>>
>> Any specific reason for that?
>
> Nothing very strong -- I just find it easier to read, and more
> consistent (since we do need to keep the names of _some_ arguments).
>
> I know there are lots of type-only declarations in the tree already, and
> I'm not suggesting we get rid of them, but I wouldn't like to see it
> become the prescribed coding style.

+1