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: <5812469C.3010403@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:32 -0700
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
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 10/27/16 09:58, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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

It is more than that.  A common convention in drivers/of/ is that
function blah() acquires a lock, calls function __blah(), and
releases the lock.  Any function other than blah() that wants
to call __blah() must also hold the proper lock.  The functions
whose name this patch changes do not fit this pattern.


> 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
>