On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:33:47 +0000 Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tstoyanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > int tep_host_bigendian(void); > > > > Rename to: bool tep_is_bigendian() > > Steven, int tep_host_bigendian(void) actually checks the endianness of > the host - > I think it makes sens "host" to be part of API's name. The other one: > int tep_is_host_bigendian(struct tep_handle *pevent) checks the > endianness stored > in the tep_handle, I think we should remove "host" from its name. > I hate the word "host" here. Because what would you get if you run this on a guest? You get the "guest" endianess (which may possibly be not the same as the host (if emulated)). I want to keep this as "tep_is_bigendian()" as it doesn't take a parameter, and is obvious to what it is returning. > > > int tep_file_bigendian(struct tep_handle *pevent); > > > > Rename to: bool tep_is_file_bigendian() > > > > > void tep_set_file_bigendian(struct tep_handle *pevent, enum tep_endian endian); > > > int tep_is_host_bigendian(struct tep_handle *pevent); > > > > Rename to: bool tep_is_host_bigendian() > > Let's rename this to: void tep_set_local_bigendian() bool tep_is_local_bigendian() It can be argued that this could be for the above (test this machine), but since the "test this machine" doesn't take a parameter, but "test the pevent bigendian" does, I want it to be consistent with tep_is_file_bigendian(), which also takes a parameter. bool tep_is_bigendian(void); bool tep_is_file_bigendian(struct tep_handle *tep); bool tep_is_local_bigendian(struct tep_handle *tep); seems more consistent than: bool tep_is_local_bigendian(void); bool tep_is_file_bigendian(struct tep_handle *tep); bool tep_is_bigendian(struct tep_handle *tep); So lets go with the first one. Make sense? -- Steve
|