[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141021155047.GA3453@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:50:47 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Philippe Rétornaz
<philippe.retornaz@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/47] kernel: Add support for poweroff handler call
chain
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:34:05AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > v2:
> > - poweroff -> power_off
>
> Do you want to stick to power[-_ ]off consistently throughout?
>
The string "poweroff" is used 819 times in today's upstream kernel.
"power_off" is used 1,496 times, presumably mostly in variable names.
"power-off" is used 145 times.
So, yes, I can change all newly introduced variable and function names
from poweroff to power_off, and all newly introduced descriptive text
from poweroff to power-off if that makes you happy. It won't improve
consistency, though, since many of the current poweroff functions
are named "something_poweroff". Hope you don't expect me to change
all those function names as well.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists