Re: [PATCH 3/3] xen/evtchn: Clean up teardown handling

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.12.2020 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/12/2020 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.12.2020 19:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> First of all, rename the evtchn APIs:
>>>  * evtchn_destroy       => evtchn_teardown
>>>  * evtchn_destroy_final => evtchn_destroy
>> I wonder in how far this is going to cause confusion with backports
>> down the road. May I suggest to do only the first of the two renames,
>> at least until in a couple of year's time? Or make the second rename
>> to e.g. evtchn_cleanup() or evtchn_deinit()?
> 
> I considered backports, but I don't think it will be an issue.  The
> contents of the two functions are very different, and we're not likely
> to be moving the callers in backports.

Does the same also apply to the old and new call sites of the functions?

> I'm not fussed about the exact naming, so long as we can make and
> agreement and adhere to it strictly.  The current APIs are a total mess.
> 
> I used teardown/destroy because that seems to be one common theme in the
> APIs, but it will require some to change their name.

So for domains "teardown" and "destroy" pair up with "create". I don't
think evtchn_create() is a sensible name (the function doesn't really
"create" anything); evtchn_init() seems quite a bit better to me, and
hence evtchn_deinit() could be its counterpart. In particular I don't
think all smaller entity functions involved in doing "xyz" for a
larger entity need to have "xyz" in their names.

Jan