Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:54:11 +0200 (CEST) | From | Guennadi Liakhovetski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] usb driver for intellon based PLC like devolo dlan duo |
| |
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, David Miller wrote:
> From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> > Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:07:52 +0200 (CEST) > > > FWIW, I think it's pretty common to name static functions in a .c file, > > which perform auxiliary function, not really specific to the context > > without the respective context-prefix. > > I'll remember to think of you next time I run grep on the tree.
Thanks David, very nice of you:-)
Once an MMC driver has been submitted for a specific platform, which apparently has been derived from an MMC driver for a similar platform. And the submitter has preserved the function prefix... So most functions in the two drivers were called equally. Now that was bad, and I was the one to complain about it, no idea what was the end result with that driver though.
What I actually meant is that I don't necessarily consider it very inconvenient if different drivers have functions like reg_write() or whatever. I cannot think of many situations when this can be confusing. If you are working with that file and see a call to reg_write() you know where to look for it. If you have an Oops in that function - you just look one function up in the backtrace. One of the cases that might be difficult is if you have an Oops in such a function without a backtrace and it is in a module. Ok, in this case it might be difficult to find out what that was. Otherwise - why would you want to grep the sources for such a function?
Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/
| |