Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen/ia64 presentation

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> 
> I think I agree that 'struct vcpu' is nicer than 'struct exec_domain'.
> exec_domain appears hardly at all at the hypervisor interface, and
> having two different terms used interchangeably within Xen itself is weird.
> 
> Another I can think of is cpuset vs. cpumask: I went with the former but
> I like the latter equally well and there is no good reason not to go
> with the Linux convention on this one.
> 
> Perhaps we should have a flag day to move to agreed consistent naming on
> some of these? The changes are trivially scriptable for the most part,
> but annoying for those with pending patches.

Sounds good to me.

On this subject, I'd also like to ask about full_execution_context_t.
execution_context_t is used in a fair number of places in the Xen core;
however full_execution_context_t seems to only be used in the dom0
interface.

The in-Xen analog to full_execution_context_t is arch_exec_domain, with
many fields duplicated between the two. Could we consolidate these, or
at least give full_execution_context_t a name that better describes its
purpose?

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center

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