Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/7] public / x86: introduce __HYPERCALL_iommu_op

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jackson [mailto:ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 07 June 2018 15:21
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich
> <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei
> Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-
> devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>; Daniel de Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tim
> (Xen.org) <tim@xxxxxxx>
> 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?

  Paul

> Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel