On 25.07.2023 01:08, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2023, Federico Serafini wrote: >> @@ -893,10 +893,10 @@ void irq_set_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, const >> cpumask_t *mask) >> desc->status |= IRQ_MOVE_PENDING; >> } >> >> -void pirq_set_affinity(struct domain *d, int pirq, const cpumask_t *mask) >> +void pirq_set_affinity(struct domain *d, int irq, const cpumask_t *mask) > > I welcome feedback from the other maintainers on this but I would keep > the original "pirq" parameter name here...
+2 We absolutely should not further increase the misnaming. Instead the goal needs to be to uniformly use pirq when pIRQ (used in interfacing with guests) is meant, and irq when a (Xen internal) IRQ is meant. Sadly this isn't helped by Arm not knowing the concept of pIRQ (see "[PATCH v2 0/2] new CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ and extra_guest_irqs adjustment"). Jan
