On Fri, 27 May 2016 10:03:31 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Kirti Wankhede
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:05 PM
> >
> >
> > >> +{
> > >> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > >> + struct phy_device *phy_dev = mdevice->phy_dev;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (dev_is_pci(phy_dev->dev) && phy_dev->ops->get_region_info) {
> > >> + mutex_lock(&mdevice->ops_lock);
> > >> + ret = phy_dev->ops->get_region_info(mdevice, index,
> > >> + vfio_region_info);
> > >> + mutex_unlock(&mdevice->ops_lock);
> > >> + }
> > >> + return ret;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +static int mdev_read_base(struct vfio_mdevice *vdev)
> > >
> > > similar as earlier comment - vdev or mdev?
> > >
> >
> > Here vdev is of type 'vfio_mdevice', that's why vdev, mdev doesn't suit
> > here. Changing it to 'vmdev' in next patch set.
> >
>
> 'vmdev' looks more confusing... :-)
>
> Alex, can you give your thought here?
I don't see any problem with vmdev personally, are you unhappy with it
because it includes 'vm'? It seems like it has a valid rationale, so
long as it's used consistently, I'm happy. Thanks,
Alex
