On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:33:16PM +0400, malc wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On 28 August 2012 18:21, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > We are talking about stuff like __kvm_pv_eoi - so the chance is exactly 0. > > > And if it does happen then you run a simple script and fix > > > this one instance. > > > > Why not just use a name that doesn't use a double underscore > > in the first place? The C standard specifically allows single > > underscore + lowercase to give things other than the implementation > > part of the underscore-namespace. In this case, "_kvm_pv_eoi" > > would be OK. > > No it wouldn't, _kvm_pv_eoi is a file scope identifier, and names > beginning with underscore are reserved in this context.
Looks like they are and I missed that. Maybe we should add that to HACKING. > > > > >> The tiny single benefit from violating the rules would be that you > > >> could use a few additional possible classes of prefixes, in addition > > >> to the infinite combinations already available. > > > > > > Benefit would be consistency with existing QEMU code > > > which has both _t __ and _X, and consistency > > > within HACKING itself. > > > > HACKING and CODING_STYLE contain a number of rules which > > the existing codebase doesn't fully conform to. The idea > > is to incrementally improve consistency and correctness. > > > > -- PMM > > > > -- > mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
