linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] can: m_can: Rename m_can_priv to m_can

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: <c49f915e-852c-fe4f-cf92-4b59d958e066@grandegger.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 19:26:00 +0100
From:   Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:     Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] can: m_can: Rename m_can_priv to m_can_classdev



Am 04.03.19 um 19:14 schrieb Dan Murphy:
> Wolfgang
> 
> On 3/4/19 11:31 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> there are still "LTL" after renaming m_can_priv to m_can_classdev.
>>
> 
> Yes I know but some of those become unreadable if I break them apart.
> 
> But if you want me to break them I can do it.
> 
> For instance
> 	struct m_can_plat_priv *priv = (struct m_can_plat_priv *)m_can_class->device_data;
> 
> will become
> 
> 	struct m_can_plat_priv *priv =
> 				(struct m_can_plat_priv *)m_can_class->device_data;

Perfect! See also my comment below.

> 
>> Am 01.03.19 um 19:50 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>>> Rename the common m_can_priv class structure to
>>> m_can_classdev as this is more descriptive.
>>
>> If you change the struct name, I think you should also change the
>> variable name to something more meaning full e.g.:
>>
>>   struct m_can_classdev *cdev
>>
>> instead of
>>
>>   struct m_can_classdev *priv
>>
>>
> 
> Ack.  This change will grow this patch as s/priv/cdev is used 250x

That's the price for changing the name. As we have it in a separate
patch, it should be OK.

Ideally, also m_can_platform.c and tcan4x5x.c should then use that name
for "struct m_can_classdev".

Wolfgang.