linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH vRFC 3/8] treewide: rename firmware_request

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 08:06:12 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, russ.weight@...ux.dev,
	rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH vRFC 3/8] treewide: rename firmware_request_platform()

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 06:52:49PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/26/2024 6:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:22:09PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2/24/2024 11:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:42:35AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:15:45AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:21:31AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:30:28PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Rename firmware_request_platform() to request_firmware_platform()
> > > > > > > > > to be more concrete and align with the name of other request
> > > > > > > > > firmware family functions.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but no, it should be "noun_verb" for public functions.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > News to me, do we have this documented somewhere?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Not really, but searching makes it nicer.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And yes, I violated this in the past in places, and have regretted it...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Care to share a few examples of regret?
> > > > 
> > > > 	get_device()
> > > > 	put_device()
> > > > 	kill_device()
> > > > 
> > > > vs. a saner:
> > > > 	kobject_get()
> > > > 	kobject_put()
> > > > 	kobject_del()
> > > > 
> > > > Learn from the mistakes of my youth please :)
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the history.,
> > > In that case, should we fix this verb_noun cases ?
> > > 
> > > request_firmware()
> > > request_firmware_into_buf()
> > > request_firmware_nowarn()
> > > request_firmware_direct()
> > > request_firmware_cache()
> > > request_partial_firmware_into_buf()
> > > release_firmware()
> > 
> > That would provide consistency, right?
> 
> Yes, Below names look better..
> 
> firmware_request()
> firmware_request_into_buf()
> firmware_request_nowarn()
> firmware_request_direct()
> firmware_request_cache()
> firmware_request_partial_into_buf()
> firmware_release()
> 
> @Luis/Others, Can we do this change ?

Go for it. I just also think we might as well document from the learnt
lessons, and our preference, instead of making this just one developer's
personal preference because the moon made them feel a different way than
two years ago. From my part it is best we *strive* to stick to one
convention, whatever it is. As for the *why* to document this, I suspect
it allows easier namespace grep'ing for symbols related to one thing or
another, as to why it shoudl go first, I'll let Greg chime in.

Long term I see value in having anything we decide to stick to, to make it
easier for debugging heuristics.

  Luis