On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 08:51 -0500, John Ferlan wrote: > > > 3) I haven't looked at how is meshes with consistency of other macro > > names in virsh*, but it would make more sense to me if these were named > > > > VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_BLAH > > > > instead of > > > > VIRSH_BLAH_OPT_COMMON > > > > It reads better, and sticks the difference out at the end where it is > > more easily separated from the "common common" part. > > I was following Peter's suggested naming: > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00675.html > > but I have no favorite... If others chime in and agree, then I'm fine > with switching. I think Peter was merely suggesting that the macros should have a suitable prefix. VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_FOO makes the most sense to me, so +1 to Laine's proposal. On the other hand, we already have some VSH_POOL_*_OPT_COMMON in master, so changing the naming now would clash with what's already been committed. On the *other* other hand, however, I think the VSH_ prefix is not appropriate for those macros, since they are virsh specific and as such should be using the VIRSH_ prefix, so the best course of action IMHO would be to first fix what's already in master to use the VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_ prefix and then follow up with this series, making sure to adhere to the same naming convention. This is prime bikeshedding material, isn't it? :) Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list