On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:27:59PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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.
BTW this is exactly what v2 of my patch did but Blue Swirl nacked this too. > >> 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 How about fixing HACKING itself? It recommends using ram_addr_t.
