WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and non-forced d

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced 
and non-forced    device remove"):
> The original rationale for the name was that the libxl_TYPE_destroy
> functions only free the content of the datastructure but not the
> datastructure itself and that calling such a function free() would be
> potentially confusing.

Hmmm.

> On the other hand not being able to use "destroy" as a term for things
> related domain destruction is a pain too.

Yes.

> Thesaurus.com suggests various things for destroy and/or free which we
> could use for the type destructors. There's lots of fun sounding ones
> ("bollix up", "enfranchise") but "release" perhaps?

"dispose" ?  "discard" ?  "dealloc[ate]" ?  "abandon" ?

"Release" sounds like it refers to some kind of lock or reservation.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>