Re: [PATCH v3 03/23] multifd: Rename used field to num

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Juan Quintela (quintela@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> > * Juan Quintela (quintela@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> We will need to split it later in zero_num (number of zero pages) and
> >> normal_num (number of normal pages).  This name is better.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  migration/multifd.h |  2 +-
> >>  migration/multifd.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/migration/multifd.h b/migration/multifd.h
> >> index 15c50ca0b2..86820dd028 100644
> >> --- a/migration/multifd.h
> >> +++ b/migration/multifd.h
> >> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ typedef struct {
> >>  
> >>  typedef struct {
> >>      /* number of used pages */
> >> -    uint32_t used;
> >> +    uint32_t num;
> >
> > What does 'used' actually mean here?
> 
> We allocate 128 pages for each "packet".
> But we can ben handled less than that (we are at the end of one
> iteration, the end of a ramblock, ...).
> That is what used mean.
> 
> But later on the series, we enter with normal pages, and zero pages, and
> naming get really confusing.  So, I moved to use *_num for everything.
> 
> Even after all the series, I didn't rename everything on multifd, only
> the fields that I have to use sooner or later.

Hmm OK, I'm not sure 'num' is much better than used, but OK


Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

> Later, Juan.
> 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK