On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:37:15AM +0900, Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > As I described, your old implementation is not acceptable just by renaming. > Although the idea of inline definitions is itself preferable. I suspect whether > inline definition for your comparison algorithm is really less overhead than > function call. > > Anyway I'll post revised version of patchset later. Oops. These APIs have arguments with opaque pointers. In the case, inline definition is not available since the layout of structure underlying the pointer is not available for userspace applications. Thus the rest of issue is whether to use 'tuple' or 'fields' in the name of new API. In my opinion, 'fields' is generic expression and could give impression to application developers that it includes numid field as well. On the other hand, 'tuple' is weak expression somehow and the developers easily find its meaning in alsa-lib documentation (see line 80). When considering about helpfulness to developers, 'tuple' seems to be better than 'fields'. Thanks Takashi Sakamoto
