Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 00/14] Use macros for more common virsh command options
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 08:51 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> 3) I haven't looked at how is meshes with consistency of other macro
> names in virsh*, but it would make more sense to me if these were named
>
> VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_BLAH
>
> instead of
>
> VIRSH_BLAH_OPT_COMMON
>
> It reads better, and sticks the difference out at the end where it is
> more easily separated from the "common common" part.
I was following Peter's suggested naming:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00675.html
but I have no favorite... If others chime in and agree, then I'm fine
with switching.
I think Peter was merely suggesting that the macros should have
a suitable prefix.
VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_FOO makes the most sense to me, so +1 to Laine's
proposal. On the other hand, we already have some
VSH_POOL_*_OPT_COMMON in master, so changing the naming now would
clash with what's already been committed.
On the *other* other hand, however, I think the VSH_ prefix is not
appropriate for those macros, since they are virsh specific and as
such should be using the VIRSH_ prefix, so the best course of action
IMHO would be to first fix what's already in master to use the
VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_ prefix and then follow up with this series,
making sure to adhere to the same naming convention.
This is prime bikeshedding material, isn't it? :)
Cheers.
--
Andrea Bolognani
Software Engineer - Virtualization Team