Re: [PATCH 3/6] xen/softirq: Rework arch_skip_send_event_check() into arch_pend_softirq()

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/07/2025 9:25 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.07.2025 09:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.07.2025 18:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 03:41:18PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/softirq.h
>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/softirq.h
>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,22 @@ enum {
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #define NR_SOFTIRQS (NR_COMMON_SOFTIRQS + NR_ARCH_SOFTIRQS)
>>>>>  
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Ensure softirq @nr is pending on @cpu.  Return true if an IPI can be
>>>>> + * skipped, false if the IPI cannot be skipped.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#ifndef arch_pend_softirq
>>>>> +static always_inline bool arch_pend_softirq(unsigned int nr, unsigned 
>>>>> int cpu)
>>>> Nit: I would maybe it arch_set_softirq(), I find `pend` not that clear
>>>> (I would rather fully spell `pending` instead).
>>> I, too, did wonder about the naming here. But using "pending" as you suggest
>>> has the effect of giving the function a name we would normally associate 
>>> with
>>> a predicate ("Is it pending?"), whereas here the function is used to _mark_ 
>>> a
>>> softirq as pending. Hence in the end I didn't comment at all; I'd be fine
>>> with "set", but I'm also okay with "pend".
>> It's a set and check kind of function, so I don't care much.  Just
>> found the pend a bit too short, I don't think we usually abbreviate
>> pending to pend.
> Aiui it's not an abbreviation, but kind of a verb (inverse-)derived from 
> pending.
> I don't know whether that's "official"; my dictionary doesn't have it.

It's used frequently in some circles, meaning "to make pending".

But I've changed the name because I don't care enough to argue.

~Andrew