On 29/03/19 19:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>> Yet they're used for less than half of the interface names:
>>>>>
>>>>> TYPE_ISADMA
>>>>> TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE
>>>>> TYPE_NMI
Could be renamed to TYPE_NMI_MONITOR_HANDLER.
>>>>> TYPE_NVRAM
>>>>> TYPE_PPC_VIRTUAL_HYPERVISOR
>>>>> TYPE_STREAM_SLAVE
>>>>> TYPE_USER_CREATABLE
>>>>> TYPE_XICS_FABRIC
>>>>> TYPE_XIVE_NOTIFIER
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we agree on one naming convention, and enforce it?
>>
>> I tend to like interface names that express an ability ("foo-er",
>> "foo-able"). Anything else should use a *_IF or *_IFACE suffix.
>
> I like the _IFACE suffix.
>
> Does eliding the _IFACE suffix for names ending with ER or ABLE improve
> readability?
>
> "foo-er" interface types:
>
> INTERFACE_RDMA_PROVIDER
> TYPE_FW_PATH_PROVIDER
> TYPE_HOTPLUG_HANDLER
> TYPE_INTERRUPT_STATS_PROVIDER
> TYPE_XIVE_NOTIFIER
>
> "foo-er" non-interface types:
Leaving out those where grammar threw a curve ball, or things that
aren't QOM types, only the following remain (some of which could be
debated further):
> TYPE_EXYNOS4210_COMBINER
> TYPE_FILTER_REWRITER
> TYPE_GENERIC_LOADER
> TYPE_PC_SPEAKER
> TYPE_PR_MANAGER
> TYPE_PR_MANAGER_HELPER
> TYPE_QIO_DNS_RESOLVER
> TYPE_QIO_NET_LISTENER
> TYPE_XIVE_ROUTER
>
> "foo-able" interface types:
>
> TYPE_USER_CREATABLE
>
> "foo-able" non-interface types:
>
> TYPE_SPAPR_TCE_TABLE
Same here, doesn't really count.
Paolo
