Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] conf: Clean up nodedev code

On 03/02/2017 10:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:04:24AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 03/02/2017 09:58 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 19:27:15 -0500, John Ferlan wrote: >>>> Alter the static functions from virNodeDev* to just nodeDev* as a visual >>>> cue to determine which are local or not when reading code. >>>> >>>> Cleanup spacing between functions, function defs, etc. to match more modern >>>> techniques used in libvirt >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> --- >>>> src/conf/node_device_conf.c | 476 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >>>> src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c | 128 ++++++------ >>>> 2 files changed, 322 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c >>>> index bc36527..09e815a 100644 >>>> --- a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c >>>> +++ b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c >>>> @@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virNodeDevDRM, VIR_NODE_DEV_DRM_LAST, >>>> "render") >>>> >>>> static int >>>> -virNodeDevCapsDefParseString(const char *xpath, >>>> - xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt, >>>> - char **string) >>>> +nodeDevCapsDefParseString(const char *xpath, >>>> + xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt, >>>> + char **string) >>> >>> Please don't remove the vir prefix. The coding style tries to converge >>> to having them everywhere. >>> >> >> Why? If a function is static, we can be sure it's not called from >> outside of the file. Moreover, I'd direct your attention to recent >> commit of f557b3351e0b6d for instance. In fact whole qemu driver serves >> as a great example: it's "static int qemuDomain*()" not "static vir >> virQEMUDomain*()". >> >> In fact, I'd suggest the opposite rule - use "vir" prefix only if >> function is shared between modules. For instance virFileCopyACLs should >> have the vir prefix because it's exported. virFileRewriteStrHelper >> should not have the prefix because it's static. >> The advantage of this approach is that one can immediately tell just >> from the name if the function is exported or not. > > No, this is a bad rule because it causes us to rename code when we > inevitably make static functions non-static. We want a naming rule > that is standardized & stable long term. Convering to use 'vir' > prefix everywhere gives us that. I fail to see why would renaming be a problem. Going from static to non-static would require to change all the callers in just one file (which is not going to have much callers anyway). Going the opposite direction - well, there are no callers in other files anyway. If there were we couldn't make the funtion static.