Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I guess my question is a deeper one: do we need to rename all the xHCI > macros to have the XHCI_ prefix, in order to avoid future collision? > For example, one of the macros is MAX_HC_PORTS, which could possibly be > used by other host drivers in the future. Hmmm... I suspect the question is whether your symbols are likely to collide with core symbols rather than symbols of unrelated drivers - after all, you're unlikely to be #including the headers of those drivers. I personally prefer to prefix the names of symbols in drivers with something consistent for that driver to reduce namespace collisions - but I know not everyone cares about that. Linux doesn't have much of a policy in this area though. I also like it because it makes tags easier to use (fewer definitions of the same symbol). Whether you should go back and rename existing xHCI functions, I don't know. I'd be tempted to leave it for now unless there's some collision. However, things like MAX_HC_PORTS does seem a little generic. Further #define collisions go unnoticed under some circumstances. Two obvious cases are (a) redefinition of a symbol because it happens to be the same value and (b) where the second one is accidentally suppressed because it is wrapped in a conditional. Perhaps we should move to C++ and use namespaces;-) David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
