>>> On 07.06.18 at 17:21, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Jackson [mailto:ian.jack...@citrix.com] >> Sent: 07 June 2018 15:21 >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> Cc: George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich >> <jbeul...@suse.com>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Wei >> Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; xen- >> devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >> <konrad.w...@oracle.com>; Daniel de Graaf <dgde...@tycho.nsa.gov>; Tim >> (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/7] public / x86: introduce __HYPERCALL_iommu_op >> >> Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [PATCH 5/7] public / x86: introduce >> __HYPERCALL_iommu_op"): >> > FWIW Linux appears to use a single '_' prefix and no suffix. >> >> This practice of scattering underscores about, apparently at random, >> is baffling to me. >> >> It doesn't look like most of the people who do it are aware of the >> rules. For example, #defining any identifier starting __ is a licence >> to the compiler to stuff demons up your nose. >> >> We should do this: >> #define XEN_PUBLIC_IOMMU_OP_H >> which is (i) not in any of the compiler's namespaces (ii) has XEN_ at >> the beginning so we can justify thinking that it won't clash with >> anyone else's identifiers (Iii) will never clash with any of our own >> because it ends in _H. >> > > Sounds ok to me. Patch to CODING_STYLE?
I've sent a patch already, but that's addressing the other aspect. I don't think CODING_STYLE needs to talk about conforming with language standards. To reduce the risk of misguiding people, I agree we should see about reducing the number of existing violations. We've been doing this for quite a while, but the process is rather slow going, largely because so far we mostly change things we need to touch anyway. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
