On 08/27/2013 06:36 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 27.08.2013, at 06:10, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 03:48 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Also, QEMU is definitely not the only project that has higher >>> acceptance >>> criteria than patch-works-for-the-patch-author. :) >> >> There's a difference between high acceptance criteria and systematic >> bike shed painting including in some case request to turn reasonably >> meaningful identifiers into something that nobody would get :-) > > The name doesn't tell at all what the function is doing. This is even true > for the kernel ioctl, but that one is in now, so it's there to stay. Heck, I > even had to look up the API documentation to know whether this sets an RTAS > to be handled in-kernel or in-user-space. > > Just come up with a good name and all is well. Or are you enjoying to > complain on every patch review I do now?
So - kvmppc_define_rtas_in_kernel() or kvmppc_define_rtas_kernel_token()? I would actually though that the very first "k" is for "Kernel" already but... -- Alexey
