On Thu, 20 Jan 2022, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed 2022-01-19 16:16:12, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue 2022-01-18 23:24:47, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >> >> d. This doesn't bring onoff() helper as there are some places in the >> >> kernel with onoff as variable - another name is probably needed for >> >> this function in order not to shadow the variable, or those variables >> >> could be renamed. Or if people wanting <someprefix> >> >> try to find a short one >> > >> > I would call it str_on_off(). >> > >> > And I would actually suggest to use the same style also for >> > the other helpers. >> > >> > The "str_" prefix would make it clear that it is something with >> > string. There are other <prefix>_on_off() that affect some >> > functionality, e.g. mute_led_on_off(), e1000_vlan_filter_on_off(). >> > >> > The dash '_' would significantly help to parse the name. yesno() and >> > onoff() are nicely short and kind of acceptable. But "enabledisable()" >> > is a puzzle. >> > >> > IMHO, str_yes_no(), str_on_off(), str_enable_disable() are a good >> > compromise. >> > >> > The main motivation should be code readability. You write the >> > code once. But many people will read it many times. Open coding >> > is sometimes better than misleading macro names. >> > >> > That said, I do not want to block this patchset. If others like >> > it... ;-) >> >> I don't mind the names either way. Adding the prefix and dashes is >> helpful in that it's possible to add the functions first and convert >> users at leisure, though with a bunch of churn, while using names that >> collide with existing ones requires the changes to happen in one go. > > It is also possible to support both notations at the beginning. > And convert the existing users in the 2nd step. > >> What I do mind is grinding this series to a halt once again. I sent a >> handful of versions of this three years ago, with inconclusive >> bikeshedding back and forth, eventually threw my hands up in disgust, >> and walked away. > > Yeah, and I am sorry for bikeshedding. Honestly, I do not know what is > better. This is why I do not want to block this series when others > like this. > > My main motivation is to point out that: > > enabledisable(enable) > > might be, for some people, more eye bleeding than > > enable ? "enable" : "disable" > > > The problem is not that visible with yesno() and onoff(). But as you said, > onoff() confliscts with variable names. And enabledisable() sucks. > As a result, there is a non-trivial risk of two mass changes: My point is, in the past three years we could have churned through more than two mass renames just fine, if needed, *if* we had just managed to merge something for a start! BR, Jani. > > now: > > - contition ? "yes" : "no" > + yesno(condition) > > a few moths later: > > - yesno(condition) > + str_yes_no(condition) > > > Best Regards, > Petr -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
