Re: [PATCH v8 11/32] x86,fs/resctrl: Rename some L3 specific functions

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Hi Tony,

On 8/11/25 11:16 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> All monitor functions are tied to the RDT_RESOURCE_L3 resource,
> so generic function names to setup and tear down domains makes sense.
> 
> With the arrival of monitor events tied to new domains associated with
> different resources it would be clearer if these functions are more

"different resources" -> "a different resource"?
"these functions" -> "the L3 resource specific functions"

> accurately named.
> 
> Two groups of functions renamed here:

"Rename three groups of functions:" 
(correct the number and make imperative)

> 
> Functions that allocate/free architecture per-RMID MBM state information:
> arch_domain_mbm_alloc()		-> l3_mon_domain_mbm_alloc()
> mon_domain_free()		-> l3_mon_domain_free()
> 
> Functions that allocate/free filesystem per-RMID MBM state information:
> domain_setup_mon_state()	-> domain_setup_l3_mon_state()
> domain_destroy_mon_state()	-> domain_destroy_l3_mon_state()
> 
> Initialization/exit:
> resctrl_mon_resource_init	-> resctrl_mon_l3_resource_init()

"resctrl_mon_resource_init" -> "resctrl_mon_resource_init()"

Up to here the renaming was consistent ... the previous patches
renamed the structs to have "l3_mon" and the functions up to here
changed to have "l3_mon" ... and then these last two switched it up
to be "mon_l3" instead. Having a consistent term makes code easier to
search and follow, could these also use "l3_mon"?

> resctrl_mon_resource_exit()	-> resctrl_mon_l3_resource_exit()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> ---

Reinette