Arnd,
Excellent suggestion. I will submit a patch to call it hv_vmbus_device
which makes it even more clear.
Thanks,
Hank.
On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:41 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> The patch looks technically correct and improves the code, but
> I'd suggest renaming the structure to fall into a proper namespace.
> The name device_object is extremely generic and should not be
> defined as part of a single driver.
> Simply putting it into a namespace here would make it
> hv_device_object,
> or even mshv_device_object ('hv' still is very generic), but then the
> 'object' part is still redundant. Since it is part of the 'vmbus'
> layer, how about naming it 'struct vmbus_device'?
>
> Arnd <><
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
