Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:32 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:23 AM Nathan Chancellor >> > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> wmi_scan_priority and scan_priority have the same values but the wmi one >> >> has WMI prefixed to the names. Since that enum is already being used, >> >> get rid of scan_priority and switch its one use to wmi_scan_priority to >> >> fix this warning. >> >> >> > Also, I don't know if the more concisely named enum is preferable? >> >> I didn't get this comment. > > Given two enums with the same values: > enum scan_priority > enum wmi_scan_priority > wouldn't you prefer to type wmi_ a few times less? Doesn't really > matter, but that was the point I was making. Ah, now I got it :) This enum is part of firmware interface (WMI) so yes, I prefer to use the wmi_ prefix to make that obvious. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
