On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:56:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 22/09/20 08:45, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > >> It's certainly a good idea but it's quite verbose. > > >> > > >> What about using atomic__* as the prefix? It is not very common in QEMU > > >> but there are some cases (and I cannot think of anything better). > > > > > > aqomic_*, lol :) > > > > Actually qatomic_ would be a good one, wouldn't it? > > Yes, I think just adding a 'q' on the front of methods is more than > sufficient (see also all the qcrypto_*, qio_* APIs I wrote). The > only think a plain 'q' prefix is likely to clash with is the Qt > library and that isn't something we're likely to link with (famous > last words...). This is why I didn't use "qatomic". "atomic" feels too common to prefix with just a single letter. But I grepped /usr/include and code searched GitHub. I can't find any uses of "qatomic_" so it looks safe. FWIW Qt does have qatomic.h but doesn't use the name for identifiers in the code. Let's do it! Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
