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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100 From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com> To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@...il.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>, Kelvin Cheung <keguang.zhang@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] mtd: nand: raw: prefix conflicting names with nandc instead of nand On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:08:23 +0100 > Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com> wrote: > >> On 11/21/2016 01:45 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Some raw NAND function names conflict with names defined in nand.h. >>> Prefix all those functions with nandc (for nand chip) instead of nand so >>> we can include nand.h from rawnand.h >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> >> >> Nit, nand and nandc is quite confusing, why not call it nand_chip in full? >> > > Indeed, the name is confusing as hell, I just tried to keep it > short but that's probably not a good idea. > Maybe I should just prefix/suffix the new functions with nanddev instead > of changing the existing ones. What do you think? That'd be less intrusive, but tbh, if the name is descriptive enough, I don't care either way. What does 'nanddev' imply though ? NAND device as in physical device or chip or just a kernel device object ? :-) -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
Powered by blists - more mailing lists