Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:01:56 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Coding style: mixed-case |
| |
Kenneth Aafløy wrote: > 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
Probably it's been like that for a long time, and nobody has really bothered to change it.
>>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.
Well the only patch that could possibly be considered would be a straight search and replace, and absolutely no functional changes; I think you would be up to it ;)
A few suggestions: Don't use PF_*. That namespace is already being used by at least process flags and protocol flags. Maybe page_locked, page_dirty, etc. might be better
There could be a quite a bit of external code using these interfaces. Typically we wouldn't just rename public interfaces in a stable series "just because", but the rules are a bit different for 2.6.
Your best bet would be to firstly do a patch to create the new interface names but keep the old ones in place for backwards compatibility (just #defined to the new name), then a second patch to convert over all the in-kernel users. The compatibility stuff can be removed in N years.
Lastly, it is quite likely that many people will consider this to be more trouble than it's worth. So keep in mind it is not guaranteed to get included.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
- 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/
| |