linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] mtd: nand: raw: prefix conflicting names with nandc instead of nand

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: <20170111133933.0752c003@bbrezillon>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:39:33 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.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 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com> wrote:

> 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 ? :-)
> 

Physical device, but it's also exposed as a kernel dev object by the
MTD layer.