[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kvm
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 4/6] system/cpus: rename qemu_global_mutex to qemu_bql
From:       Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha () redhat ! com>
Date:       2023-11-30 20:31:32
Message-ID: 20231130203132.GB1184658 () fedora
[Download RAW message or body]


On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> On 29/11/23 22:26, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > The APIs using qemu_global_mutex now follow the Big QEMU Lock (BQL)
> > nomenclature. It's a little strange that the actual QemuMutex variable
> > that embodies the BQL is called qemu_global_mutex instead of qemu_bql.
> > Rename it for consistency.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >   system/cpus.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/system/cpus.c b/system/cpus.c
> > index eb24a4db8e..138720a540 100644
> > --- a/system/cpus.c
> > +++ b/system/cpus.c
> > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
> >   #endif /* CONFIG_LINUX */
> > -static QemuMutex qemu_global_mutex;
> > +static QemuMutex qemu_bql;
> 
> I thought we were using _cond/_sem/_mutex suffixes, but
> this is not enforced:

I'm open to alternative names. Here are some I can think of:
- big_qemu_lock (although grepping for "bql" won't find it)
- qemu_bql_mutex

If there is no strong feeling about this then let's leave it at
qemu_bql. Otherwise, please discuss.

Thanks,
Stefan

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]