Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
> 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
As long as grep doesn't understand grammar, further debate seems not
without merit :)
>> "foo-able" interface types:
>>
>> TYPE_USER_CREATABLE
>>
>> "foo-able" non-interface types:
>>
>> TYPE_SPAPR_TCE_TABLE
>
> Same here, doesn't really count.
>
> Paolo
