linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 06/13] of: Remove prefix "__of_" and prefix "_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJdBAeAUfODEzvpNELmLj9ib1CKwQVsEVGsFYAnBuj_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:58:00 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/13] of: Remove prefix "__of_" and prefix "__" from
 local function names

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/16 05:47, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:58 PM,  <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
>>
>> I prefer to leave the prefixes and this is getting into pointless churn.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/of/resolver.c | 10 +++++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>
> If I was just submitting this as a single patch, I would agree.
>
> But since I am making so many other changes, I think it makes
> sense to do this as part of this series.  It is broken apart
> as a separate patch to be easy to review and not pollute any
> of the other patches in the series.
>
> The prefixes add no value for a local function, but they do
> add noise when reading code.

The value is when reading the calling function, you know the function
is a DT related function. You don't know it's a static function
without looking up the function name. That said, I wouldn't object to
code originally written either way, I just don't see the value in
changing it.

Rob