On 17.07.2024 02:20, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 16.07.2024 02:43, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 13.07.2024 00:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> I further have to note that, as indicated during the earlier discussion, >>>>>> I still cannot see how occasional ambiguity is going to be dealt with. >>>>>> IOW from the rules above two different headers could still end up with >>>>>> the same guard identifier. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe something like this? >>>>> >>>>> "In the event of naming collisions, exceptions to the coding style may >>>>> be made at the discretion of the contributor and maintainers." >>>> >>>> Hmm, maybe I wasn't clear enough then. My take is that the scheme should >>>> simply not allow for possible collisions. Neither the contributor nor the >>>> reviewer may spot such a collision, and it may therefore take until the >>>> first full scan that one is actually noticed. Which I consider too late >>>> in the process, even if we already were at the point where commits were >>>> checked pre-push. >>> >>> Looking at the proposal, copy/pasted here for convenience: >>> >>> - private headers -> <dir>_<filename>_H >>> - asm-generic headers -> ASM_GENERIC_<filename>_H >>> - #ifndef ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H >>> #define ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H >>> //... >>> #endif /* ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H */ >>> - arch/<architecture>/include/asm/<subdir>/<filename>.h -> >>> ASM_<architecture>_<subdir>_<filename>_H >>> - #ifndef ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H >>> #define ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H >>> //... >>> #endif /* ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H */ >>> - xen/include/xen/<filename>.h -> XEN_<filename>_H >>> - xen/include/xen/<subdir>/<filename>.h -> XEN_<subdir>_<filename>_H >>> >>> >>> The only possibility for collision that I can see is from the first >>> point: >>> >>> - private headers -> <dir>_<filename>_H >> >> I don't think this is the only possibility of collisions. The >> <subdir>_<filename> >> parts can similarly cause problems if either of the two involved names >> contains >> e.g. a dash (which would need converting to an underscore) or an underscore. >> To >> avoid this, the name separators (slashes in the actual file names) there may >> need >> representing by double underscores. > > I am OK with you two underscores as name separator (slashes in the > actual file names). Would you do it for all levels like this? > > - arch/arm/arm64/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM64__LIB__SOMETHING_H > - arch/arm/arm32/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM32__LIB__SOMETHING_H > - arch/x86/lib/something.h -> X86__LIB__SOMETHING_H > > > I think it is better than the below: > > - arch/arm/arm64/lib/something.h -> ARM_ARM64__LIB__SOMETHING_H > - arch/arm/arm32/lib/something.h -> ARM_ARM32__LIB__SOMETHING_H > - arch/x86/lib/something.h -> X86_LIB__SOMETHING_H
Hmm, maybe it's indeed better to do it entirely uniformly then. Jan
