On 01/17/2018 09:55 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Tue 16 Jan 2018 11:26:40 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote: >>> /* allocate a new entry in the l2 cache */ >>> >>> + slice_size = s->l2_slice_size * sizeof(uint64_t); >> >> Would this read any better if the earlier patch named it >> s->l2_slice_entries? > > I had doubts with this. Like you, when I see size I tend to think about > bytes. However both s->l1_size and s->l2_size indicate entries, and the > documentation of the qcow2 format even describes the header field like > this: > > 36 - 39: l1_size > Number of entries in the active L1 table
We're free to rename the field in the qcow2 format specification if it makes things easier to understand. If l1_entries reads better than l1_size, maybe it's worth doing. > > So I decided to follow that same convention for l2_slice_size. > > For the local variable I could call it slice_size_bytes or try to come > up with a different alternative, but I'm open to suggestions. > > Berto > -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
