On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:04:24 +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@redhat.com> --- 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
The static function name may still show up in logs and backtraces. It's better to see what belongs to libvirt and what does not.
commit of f557b3351e0b6d for instance. In fact whole qemu driver serves as a great example: it's "static int qemuDomain*()" not "static vir virQEMUDomain*()".
Well, if somebody changes the whole src/qemu_driver.c to use the vir prefix I'll use the vir prefix. It's called consistency.
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.
If we codify this rule, this will mean that once we will export the function you'll have to rename it. Also once you unexport it, you'll have to rename it. I think that's silly. I'd stick with the prefix everywhere.
The advantage of this approach is that one can immediately tell just from the name if the function is exported or not.
I don't think this is very useful. If you are refactoring it you should check all callers anyways and other than that the information is not very useful.