[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1426807355.21142.21.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:22:35 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
lm-sensors <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] documentation: update CodingStyle on local
variables naming in macros
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:27 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> Describe proper naming convention for local variables in macros
> resembling functions.
[]
> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
[]
> +5) namespace collisions when defining local variables in macros resembling
> +functions:
> +
> +#define FOO(x) \
> +({ \
> + typeof(x) ret; \
> + ret = calc_ret(x); \
> + (ret); \
trivia: ret wouldn't need parentheses here.
> +)}
> +
> +ret is a common name for a local variable - __foo_ret is less likely
> +to collide with an existing variable.
Is shadowing really much of a problem here?
These are statement expression macros and names
have local scope anyway.
It's similar to function arguments using the same
names as parameters.
--
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