Messages in this thread | | | From | Kenneth Aafløy <> | Subject | Re: Coding style: mixed-case | Date | Wed, 6 Apr 2005 04:37:40 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 04:09, Matt Mackall wrote: > While there may be reasons why mixed case is suboptimal, the real > reason is that it's hard to keep track of which style is used where. > It's annoying and error-prone to have to remember the naming format > for everything in addition to its name. As most things are in a > standard style, things are made easier by having every piece of new > code follow that style and let us slowly approach uniformity.
My primary concern was that of; why does the kernels own coding style deviate from that advise given in it's documentation. Other than that most mixed-case errors will be caught by the compiler, unless there is an ambiguity with other mixed-case statements; which is probably why that clause exists in the coding style documentation.
> If you posted a patch for pf_locked() and friends (and note that it's > lowercase to match function-like usage), you'd probably find some > enthusiasts and some naysayers. Most of the naysayers would object on > the grounds of "it ain't broke", but if someone were to do it as part > of a series of more substantial clean-ups, it'd likely be accepted.
Certainly I would like to have a go at a patch, but I must say that I do not feel particularly familiar with the code in question to make such a change. I would have risen to the challenge had this been a driver level change, but the mmu is something that I will not touch untill I feel comfortable. I feel that this is a change that would be best managed by an experienced kernel janitor.
Kenneth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |