Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/39] Delay destruction of memory regions to instance_finalize

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:53:05AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:50:52AM +0200, Andreas Färber 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.
> >> 
> >> The general idea looks good.
> >> 
> >> 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"?
> 
> exit/unrealize != free/destroy.
> 
> 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=unrealize
> 
> English is a fluid language.  I wouldn't worry too much about that.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 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.
> >> 
> >> Andreas
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> >> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg