On 2012-02-16 12:06, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 15.02.2012 19:55, schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> On 2012-02-15 19:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Remove ugly macros for field names, >>> change done by the following script: >>> >>> s#\bifq_prev\b#m_prev#g; >>> s#\bifq_next\b#m_next#g; >>> s#\bifs_prev\b#m_prevpkt#g; >>> s#\bifs_next\b#m_nextpkt#g; >>> s#\bifq_so\b#m_so#g; >>> s#\bm_next\b#m_hdr.mh_next#g; >>> s#\bm_prev\b#m_hdr.mh_prev#g; >>> s#\bm_nextpkt\b#m_hdr.mh_nextpkt#g; >>> s#\bm_prevpkt\b#m_hdr.mh_prevpkt#g; >>> s#\bm_flags\b#m_hdr.mh_flags#g; >>> s#\bm_len\b#m_hdr.mh_len#g; >>> s#\bm_data\b#m_hdr.mh_data#g; >>> s#\bm_size\b#m_hdr.mh_size#g; >>> s#\bm_dat\b#M_dat.m_dat_#g; >>> s#\bm_ext\b#M_dat.m_ext_#g; >> >> Could you convert M_dat to m_dat as well (do not script, it's also a >> type)? It looks strange. > > What are all these m_ and mh_ prefixes for struct fields even about? > When I have an mbuf, I know perfectly well that it is one, and that > m_hdr is a header of it. > > So while we're cleaning up here, wouldn't mbuf->hdr->next make more > sense than mbuf->m_hdr->mh_next?
I tend to agree - as we are already touching so many files, and the names also get longer due to this. Mind to respin the series? Thanks, Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
