On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:07:36PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > 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. Hmm, yeah, I think it doesn't make sense to change all the macros now. If I were starting a new driver, I think I would use a common prefix. I'll add the macro renaming to my todo list and see if I can get some newbie to take it on. 8) > Perhaps we should move to C++ and use namespaces;-) Hah! Sarah Sharp -- 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
