* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10:30 Fri 13 May , Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_BIOS
> >> > > - if (!rt->signature) {
> >> > > + if (config_is_pci_bios() && !rt->signature) {
> >> >
> >> > Makes sense - but please name it in a more obvious way, such as:
> >> >
> >> > pci_bios_enabled()
> >> the idea to generate the macro via Kconfig
> >
> > Okay, and there we are stuck with whatever the Kconfig name is. (we could
> > rename that but not needed really)
> >
> > Why not the canonical config_pci_bios() variant? It's the shortest one to
> > write. The '_is' looks pretty superfluous to me.
> >
> > Hm, i guess it could be mixed up with a function that configures the pci_bios.
> >
> > I guess since i don't have any better idea config_is_pci_bios() sounds like a
> > good choice after all.
>
> But we don't name config options like CONFIG_IS_PCI_BIOS, do we?
The problem is that 'config' can be misunderstood as a verb - it's often used
for function names to say 'to configure'.
By naming it 'config_is_()' it unambiguously becomes a noun.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
