> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.march...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2023 10.55 > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:53 AM David Marchand > <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:50 AM Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > wrote: > > > > This 10 value in the comment is easy to miss if some change with the > > > > prefix is done. > > > > Mentionning RTE_THREAD_INTERNAL_NAME_SIZE is enough. > > > > > > I disagree with David's comment to this. > > > > > > The function documentation is easier to read if the actual number is also > mentioned. > > > > > > For the best of both worlds, you can add something like this nearby: > > > > > > _Static_assert(sizeof(RTE_THREAD_NAME_PREFIX) == sizeof("dpdk-"), > > > "Length of RTE_THREAD_NAME_PREFIX has changed; " > > > "the documentation needs updating."); > > > > And how will it catch the comment about 10 characters ? > > I mean you still have to re-read the whole documentation and look for > some reference somewhere about 10 characters.
The trick is to put the _Static_assert close to where the expectation occurs. That makes it easier to find where changes are necessary. And the _Static_assert can be added at all the locations where changes would be necessary. (Generally, we should add a lot more _Static_assert to the code where it makes assumptions about e.g. the ordering of fields in a struct, such as the vector optimized code.) Also, the failure message could be improved to include help about what to look for. PS: The reference to RTE_THREAD_INTERNAL_NAME_SIZE should remain in the documentation, so perhaps look for "RTE_THREAD_INTERNAL_NAME_SIZE".
