RE: [PATCH 3/5] tools/misc: add xen-ctx to present domain context

[Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 03 April 2020 16:30
> To: paul@xxxxxxx
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ian Jackson' 
> <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Wei Liu' <wl@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] tools/misc: add xen-ctx to present domain context
> 
> On 03.04.2020 17:20, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: 30 March 2020 11:54
> >> To: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ian Jackson 
> >> <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] tools/misc: add xen-ctx to present domain context
> >>
> >> On 27.03.2020 19:50, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >>> This tools is analogous to 'xen-hvmctx' which presents HVM context.
> >>> Subsequent patches will add 'dump' functions when new records are
> >>> introduced.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .gitignore           |   1 +
> >>>  tools/misc/Makefile  |   4 ++
> >>>  tools/misc/xen-ctx.c | 144 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Is xen-ctx a good choice of a name, considering we already have not
> >> only xen-hvmctx, but also xenctx? If the new functionality isn't a
> >> good fit for either, perhaps its name would better reflect its
> >> connection to save/restore records? xen-sr-dump looks pretty clumsy
> >> to me, but still seems better than a name easily mixed up with
> >> others.
> >
> > How about xen-domctx?
> 
> Hmm, maybe. Seeing this is about PV pieces, xen-pvctx might also be
> an option.

Yes, that would work but it also implies it might only be valid for PV domains. 
I also prefer 'domctx' since it better matches the name I chose for the 
framework.

  Paul