[libvirt] [PATCH 6/9] conf: Rename cachetune to restune

[bing.niu]

On 2018年07月27日 00:32, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/18/2018 03:57 AM, bing.niu at intel.com wrote:
>> From: Bing Niu <bing.niu at intel.com>
>>
>> Resctrl not only supports cache tuning, but also memory bandwidth
>> tuning. Renaming cachetune to restune(resource tuning) to reflect
>> that. With restune, all allocation for different resources (cache,
>> memory bandwidth) are aggregated and represented by a
>> virResctrlAllocPtr inside virDomainRestuneDef.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bing Niu <bing.niu at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   src/conf/domain_conf.c  | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>   src/conf/domain_conf.h  | 10 +++++-----
>>   src/qemu/qemu_domain.c  |  2 +-
>>   src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>>   4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> As I noted previously, not much a fan of Restune instead of Cachetune,
> but I understand the logic why you went that way.
> 
> I wonder if "virDomainResAllocDef" is any better (resallocs,
> nresallocs)?  or if that clashes with any other namespace so far?  or is
> too close to virResctrlAllocPtr.
> 
> Or perhaps "virDomainResCtrlDef" w/ resctrls and nresctrls to mimic the
> virresctrl.{c,h} naming scheme.

virDomainResCtrlDef is better. How about we did one puny adjustment.

virDomainResctrlDef w/ resctrls and nresctrls?

Use little 'c' can align with virresctrl.c function naming. ;)

> 
> As previously stated, "Naming is hard"... Wish there was more feedback
> than just me on this, but in the long run, I'll go with whatever the
> Intel team agrees upon as it's not that big a deal. If someone else has
> agita after things are pushed and wants to change the name, then they
> know how to send patches.


> 
> John
> 
> [...]
>