On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Colin McCabe wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub > <yehudasa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub > > <yehudasa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> What do you guys think of changing struct ceph_mount_t to struct > >>> ceph_mount_info_t? > >>> > >> I personally don't like sticking a _t prefix to a struct. It's either > >> a typedef or a struct. > >> > > Ahrm.. *postfix* > > > > I'm ok with removing the _t stuff from our library APIs. But it we'd > have to bump up the revision numbers on everything :P > > I'm just going to leave this here: > > http://ceph.newdream.net/git/?p=ceph-client.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/CodingStyle;h=8bb37237ebd25b19759cc47874c63155406ea28f;hb=HEAD Ok, I'll bite. ceph_mount_info_t -> struct ceph_mount_info *, etc. If we do the same on librados it'd be a rev change, yep. It would also improve compiler warnings.. I was bit last night by rados_aio_create_completion(0, 0, 0, &a); rados_aio_write(io_ctx, "a", a, buf, 100, 0); vs rados_aio_write(io_ctx, "a", &a, buf, 100, 0); because the typedefs are all void*. sage > > > Chapter 5: Typedefs > > > > Please don't use things like "vps_t". > > > > It's a _mistake_ to use typedef for structures and pointers. When you see a > > > > vps_t a; > > > > in the source, what does it mean? > > > > In contrast, if it says > > > > struct virtual_container *a; > > > > you can actually tell what "a" is. > > > > Lots of people think that typedefs "help readability". Not so. They are > > useful only for: > > [...] > > > > I'll come back once the flamewar has settled down :) > > Colin > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
