On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20/08/17 14:39, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Add core support for handling CQE requests, including starting, completing >>> and recovering. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >>> +static void __mmc_cqe_request_done(struct mmc_host *host, >>> + struct mmc_request *mrq) >> >> We are naming too much stuff __foo now, it gets really hard to figure >> out from the function name and the surrounding code what is going on. > > You have written several times that you don't like __foo() names, however it > is a normal kernel paradigm. Normal doesn't mean "good". I am negative to it because it has very unclear semantics. What is the semantic meaning of prefixing a function with __* really? I have referred to Rusty Russell's API levels: http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto This is on level 3-4 and definately not at 6. So in my opinion, I have informed, founded in theory and valid reasons to dislike it, and I don't think it is a matter of taste or opinion. >> I guess people are using this like "do parts of what mmc_cqe_request_done() >> is doing" but it'd be nice if we could be specific. >> >> mmc_cqe_request_finalize() could work? > > It can be rolled into mmc_cqe_request_done(). OK! Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
