On 28 August 2012 18:21, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > We are talking about stuff like __kvm_pv_eoi - so the chance is exactly 0. > And if it does happen then you run a simple script and fix > this one instance.
Why not just use a name that doesn't use a double underscore in the first place? The C standard specifically allows single underscore + lowercase to give things other than the implementation part of the underscore-namespace. In this case, "_kvm_pv_eoi" would be OK. >> The tiny single benefit from violating the rules would be that you >> could use a few additional possible classes of prefixes, in addition >> to the infinite combinations already available. > > Benefit would be consistency with existing QEMU code > which has both _t __ and _X, and consistency > within HACKING itself. HACKING and CODING_STYLE contain a number of rules which the existing codebase doesn't fully conform to. The idea is to incrementally improve consistency and correctness. -- PMM
